WhiskeySix

This is one of my biggest pet-peeves... how the word "Tactical" is sometimes used to describe one particular 'pace' of game play... in this thread an ultra-realistic, very slow pace. Is the disciplined, procedure-driven approach to room clearing in SWAT4 really very different than the disciplined, procedure-driven approach to defending an objective with nine units in BF2? If every player has a specific role and responsibility within the framework of a squad, is that not 'tactical'? Or what about the careful planning required to coordinate troop movements at the chess-board level in a massive 12-squad battle. Is this not 'tactical'?


My point isn't to defend BFx here. (ok.. if I'm honest with myself, I guess it is a little bit ) ANYWAY - I just think that we need to focus on why we each, as individuals, enjoy gaming... and how TG can enable that enjoyment. I think it's safe to say that everyone is here because we're looking for the thrill and pride you get from contributing to a team's success - whether that team is 4 virtual officers methodically clearing a building, an army in some futuristic large-scale battle, or a gang of cartoon pyromaniacs.

ALL the games TG hosts are (or should be) played with respect and maturity, with extensive use of voice com's, with a team-first attitude, and with a focus on the objective. If any of those things aren't happening, it's a problem and needs a light shined on it - as you've done here Magnum (+rep). You perceive some problems, and if I've learned anything in marraige, it's that perception is reality. So, while it's ok to try "making it better" by pointing out why someone's perception may be off, we also need to be very careful about discounting anyone's opinion...


The final thing I'd like to say is that things have changed a LOT recently, both for better and worse... though largely for the better. I'd like to challenge EVERYONE to reevaluate their opinions and perceptions. Hit the reset button. Give that game you had a horrible time with 6 months ago another honest chance. If you thought the IHS system was broken, take a fresh look at how things are today. There are a lot of people working very hard to address issues as they come up, and from where I sit, they seem to be doing a very good job... but if we hold grudges and stick to our old perceptions, all that work and all those changes are for naught.

__________________




Reflexes are for mistakes only. Reaction implies surprise. Be surprised less.

Elwenil

Everyone here has made some valid points, but honestly, can you blame the TG members who have been here for years for not liking the direction things seem to be taking? I'm not complaining, or saying there needs to be change, but that there should be some standardization of what all these terms and buzz words mean, since a lot of the time, they mean different things to us. The word "tactical" is thrown around a lot since it is what draws a lot of people here because of the name. Tactical is defined as:
1. of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military or naval tactics.
2. characterized by skillful tactics or adroit maneuvering or procedure: tactical movements.
3. of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.
4. expedient; calculated.
5. prudent; politic.

And yes, one could argue that this applies to all games, but if we do look back at TG's past, tactical meant something a bit more simulation. Before BF2 came out and there was just the Desert Combat and EOD mods for BF1942, there was Ghost Recon and Joint Ops and other such titles and a severe lack of tactical game play. Most GR servers were respawn servers full of camping and spawn raping. The idea of tactical meant sticking with your team, and working together in a slower, more methodical way. It meant not talking over comms when you are dead, because dead men don't speak. It meant no respawns, because in real life, when you are dead, you are dead. It meant defeating your enemy using real life strategy and not loop holes in the game or exploits. It meant true military tactics, not just walking through the woods together and stacking against a building.

Now there seems to be a looser interpretation of the term "tactical". Is this because the gaming world has shifted it's focus, or because TG wants to make everyone feel welcome, even if they are not a "tactical" gamer in the old sense of the term? Are we bending the meaning of the word to fit our situation? I don't agree that the term can apply to a lot of games, simply because in some games tactics rarely work. I can remember trying tactics, bounding movements and stacking in Raven Shield. While we were busy looking tactical, some internet ninja would pop around the corner and crouch and fire and kill half of our team. If that could happen in real life, our world would be drastically different, lol. Because of the limitations of the game engines and the lack of real world situational awareness, a lot of games have added perks to help the players out. Some are good, some are decidedly bad and have ruined the gameplay for many tactically minded gamers. In a lot of ways this is the fault of the industry but should TG change to fit that idea or stay more to it's roots?

One can argue that the "tactical" minded players are not as numerous as other players, but obviously we are out there and people are taking notice. Look at the sheer amount of tactical, reality, and accuracy based mods out there for just about every FPS made. People are screaming for it, but the industry doesn't make them because every cries about how hard they are, so the people make them for themselves. The question is, should Tactical Gamer shift it's focus and tolerances to allow more open and vanilla style gaming, or stay with what it always was, or simply change the name to "Sitting on the Fence Gamer".

And take note, this is not a complaint, or whining, it is simply my view and concern about TG as a community in which we are all a part of and should be able to voice our concerns about. And don't even think about PM'ing me with any BS about leaving. I'm not telling anyone to leave, so don't waste your time doing it to me. Anyone who did so to Magnum should be ashamed and turn in your TG tag immediately. That sort of thing does not help anyone and cheapens our community as a whole. Show some respect and you will get it back.

__________________

Drizzid

Well I have heard a lot of opinions and points of view but I haven't heard much when it comes to possible solutions to the different view points and opinions other that what Whiskey posted. I have been here for a couple of years and just in that amount of time I have seen TG change a lot some of it I like and some of it I don't but I think people need to remember that TG is a business. It is a non-profit business but a business non the less. More people means more money and better equipment to host the games we play no matter how tactical or action shooter they may be.

Magnum has exspressed his view and there are others that share this same view so my question to those who do is why don't you come up with a possible solution instead of just stating your view? Are you asking others to fix your problem or do you have any possible solutions to add to this discussion. I can come up with a couple that might suit to please everyone involved. Essentially create the environment you want and others will come if that is what they want. Some may come and go as their moods suits them. A few posts and PM's can go a long way in getting it started and who knows you may find your glory days again. But I will add this in closing, I was told once by a fellow TGer when I was complaining about somethings that were not going to my liking and was raving about the good ol days of TG and this is what he said "The glory days are never as glorious as they once were". JMHO

Oh and one other thing I would have loved to have given +rep to some very good posts on both sides of this discussion but I can't since I am not s SM at this time and I will say that is something I don't like!!!

__________________

Elwenil

Honestly, while I feel I should voice my concerns about what is basically a product I am paying for, also it is ultimately up to the powers that be to choose to do something or nothing about it and what action to take. But if it were my community and I had some control of it, I suppose I would put more Admins and Game Officers on duty to enforce a lot of the rules that are already there that seem to be slipping. I can't speak for all the servers, but the PR server suffers from a lot of foolishness that is normally only seen in public servers. There should be active campaigns to promote other players reporting such offenses with the "!Reporting" text. I do know for a fact that a lot of the Admins who are active in PR and in the PR forums do just that, but maybe some incentive program would further entice players to help keep the servers what they are intended to be. I would have a strict set of rules which would be posted and made public on how offenses would be dealt with. Repeat offenders would be banned from the server that they were found breaking the rules. Something like first offenses would get a PM or a discussion on TS with an Admin, second offenses would result in a ban of some duration, third would be a infinite ban from the server. I would streamline the forum somewhat so that it would be so simple a 3 year old child could find and understand the Primer and SOP for a particular server so there would be few excuses for not knowing the rules. Threads containing passwords to servers for password nights would also contain highlights of the rules and SOP and strict penalties would be enforced for giving out the password to friends so they don't have to get on the forums. The bottom line would be education, teamwork and discipline.

And while that all makes me sound like a dictator to a certain extent, it is what I would do and I am known by my personal friends for not having a very large tolerance for foolishness. Some would argue for leniency for offenses and perhaps in certain situations it would be necessary. The problem with being too lenient is what we have now. Where TG doesn't seem to have the intimidation factor it had when I first came into contact with TG. And while that may be great for attracting players, you have to take the good with the bad. So what then do you do with the bad? You educate them on the TG way. If that doesn't work, for the sake of keeping the TG servers what the rest of us pay for and enjoy, then action must be taken.

Honestly, I don't know exactly how the Admins handle the offenses and the offenders. I have been lucky so far to not need more than a quick, "hey, don't do that". I can't say really that they aren't doing a great job, because they are as far as I can see. But there isn't enough coverage at certain times, and I don't mean at 4 AM EST. There is a definite lack of seriousness when a poll taken in the PR forum on if using a Pilot kit to parachute into enemy territory was or was not a exploit comes up as a close race and ended up with the majority saying that it is not an exploit. In my opinion, this is an obvious misuse of a kit and obviously the PR devs did not want people randomly para-dropping in everywhere since they eliminated all the other parachutes in the game. An military force is not going to spend thousands of dollars to train a pilot to fly, only to drop him in hostile territory with only a pistol to do Spec Ops work. This is totally unrealistic and hence totally contrary to the "reality" in "Project Reality". And this is just one example.

So there, I have voiced my opinions on what I think, in my mind, are "wrong" or at least needs attention and I have roughly outlined what I would do if it were my place, which it is not. I do not mean this to criticize our Admins or any of "the powers that be" in any way. I think they do a great job and TG has grown because of it. But with that growth, there needs to be more policing of the forums and servers. I totally understand what a job it is to do it, having been an Admin for a time myself. The problem is finding people trustworthy enough to do the job correctly. But that is another separate problem that I have no real position on.

Also, I must say that I have no real issues with action style gaming at TG, but please, please, lets try to keep the reality, and classic tactical games the way they are intended to be. I started with PR because I posted a thread asking why I should join TG and if it would fit what I wanted out of gaming. After my description of my desires, I was directed to PR and found a home there and now I am a proud member of the 10th TG. If people want to play more action oriented games, more power to them. Find what you like and stick with it if it makes you happy and you have a great time. That's what this is all about. But I think we should keep the action style playing in the action games and keep the "I wanna be like Rambo, I'm l33t, I want that tank, and I can't sit still, I need to attack and get kills" somewhere else. We need team players regardless of the game, but a team has to have a focus and there are a lot of players that simply just don't get it.

Ok, that was a lot more than I originally intended to type and I apologize. I don't expect anyone to really read it, but after being asked for answers twice, and thinking about how much this bothers me, I decided to post. The above is simply my personal opinions as they apply to this discussion. They are not intended to irritate anyone or accuse anyone, but simply to give you options to consider and a look at my point of view. If nothing else, I hope it at least gets some minds to thinking.

Cheers!

__________________

BigGaayAl

Elwenil, on your example in PR: in my opinion you should make a careful distinction between what the PR devs want and what TG may want. If it was up to the PR devs, everyone would be sitting in the opposing team's main base from start to finish.

Personally, realism isn't what drew me to TG at all. Rather a friendly and polite community drew me here. While I like aspects of realism, using real-life tactics in something I care a lot more for then a realistic game engine. The chess game behind the action game is what interests me.

Then again i wasn't there in the 'old days'

__________________

If a cluttered desk is the sign of a cluttered mind, what is the significance of a clean desk?
Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)

Magnum50

brining something up, identify problems is PART of the solution... OK you want solutions... only play old school games that were every tactical not all eye candy, disband all IHS's, do not allow action game servers instead only tactical game servers, make everyone play nice, have everyone at TG play games my way, with my goals and opinions only...

ya ridiculous, right? I agree... but you wanted solutions instead of posting.

Part of problem solving is bringing up problems, addresses them, and correcting them... I did that but instead of addressing some of the concerns most want to deny them, and turn it against the poster for brining up either real, or preceived problems...

heres an idea... how about no one else post that this shouldn't be posted and discussed, and address the issues about how the problem, or preceived problem can be solved. WOW, what do you know... problem solving in the work.

__________________
Magnum
www.simhq.com

asch

There seems to be some confusion about the origin of in-house squads. I'll eventually get to a new article about them, but here's the reader's digest version.

In-house squads existed LONG before battlefield 2. The IHS system within BF2 took off because there was an apparent need/desire for them. In-house squads will come and go just like players come and go from Tactical Gamer.

I'd also like to address the old school vs new school comments. Tactical Gamer has not changed the type of community we're driving to be. Years ago the games (and hence the players) that existed were those that focused on realism. Our support for those games has not changed. What has changed is the increased support for other game titles.

A game will live or die at Tactical Gamer based on the players supporting the title... NOT by the players that support OTHER titles. If players would like to see certain titles more supported here at Tactical Gamer they need to work to grow the TG:GameABC community. That means seeding the server, external recruiting, providing events, etc.

Let's also remember to keep this discussion mature and respectful. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we should all try to understand other folks perspectives. Not everyone will agree and that is perfectly ok. But let's stop the negative undertones and sarcasm.

__________________
Little asch



Don't be a Help Vampire!

jb4

Since I have only been a SM for a little over a year, what Asch states is what I see here. This community has grown by leaps and bounds by not only more players to support existing games here, but the new game titles played here as well. With all of this growth comes a certain amount of diversity within the games. I see it as a growing gray area between tactical and teamwork. The game will dictate which way the pendulum will swing within that range. As a community, I feel we should hold firm to the core beliefs and principles that make this the premiere play to play, but at the same time we can appreciate the diversity of games whether they are slanted to tactics or teamwork. I really saw the clash of opinions when CoD4 came out. There were 2 servers running; one with a hardcore tactical version and another with more of the objective based "vanilla" version. We could not fill either server because so many players were furiously typing away in the forums to the tune of "my way is tactical and yours is not, we should make your game play like my game". It was a very heated, but healthy debate that IMO went on way too long considering the servers were sitting empty for a while. I am more of the opinion to look at it this way: "I see you like to play it that way, but that is not for me all the time, sometimes I like to play it a different way. I respect that you don't like to play it that way, so I am glad we can play it both ways here." Fortunately, the CoD4 crowd worked that out and life goes on.

For all of you that have been around since the early days and like it a certain way, I respect that, I like to play games like that sometimes also. If you are dissatisfied with it, bring it up like you are doing. That is another great thing about TG, we have a lot of different opinions that we can throw out there and discuss thoughtfully amongst ourselves. Not everybody is going to be happy, that is part of what happens when any organization grows past a certain point. At the end of the day, IMO, if we are sticking to our core principles of tactics and teamwork, we are very fortunate to have a large community where everybody can have a part of it that really works for them. The community will decide if a game fits TG based on how they support it.

__________________



POE2 Overview|BF2v Server Rules|Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

WhiskeySix

I happen to think football is more "tactical" than basketball - but that's just because playing it I saw the full depth of strategy in the X's and O's in the playbook. There's a break between each play where each team decides which scrip they're going to execute on that play.

On the other hand, I never really played organized basketball. To me it looks like they're all just running around improvising. I don't know what a basketball play IS... but I do think there is a method to the madness - I think there are really complicated schemes going on that I just don't realize or understand. So maybe football isn't more "tactical" than basketball?

__________________




Reflexes are for mistakes only. Reaction implies surprise. Be surprised less.

Atomic Dog

Ping Pong is the epitomy of lone-wolf tactics. It is not the TG Way.

__________________

WhiskeySix

First, dude, the preferred nomenclature is Table Tennis. And you seem to have forgotten DOUBLES table tennis - which IS the TG way!

__________________




Reflexes are for mistakes only. Reaction implies surprise. Be surprised less.

Atomic Dog

That's deep man.

__________________

† Disciple †

For those that don't believe table tennis can be tactical, you obviously haven't witnessed team table tennis.

__________________

Braidedheadman

Can we please stop treating words like "tactical" as though their definitions hinged on other words like "realism" and "action"? It confuses the issue, and obfuscates what one is really trying to say, which seems to be, "I prefer more realistic games. I wish the less realistic games would go away." The misuse of "tactical" vs "action" games (and gamers) here isn't doing anybody a lick of good. It's been stated repeatedly that "tactical games" rest in how they are played, not in how well they simulate one's preferences. Let's stick to that, please.

Now, what slot do I stick my $0.02 in?

__________________

Elwenil

Actually that is part of the issue. Tactical means different things to us "old school" TG players and the new players. While it is true that you can use tactics in just about anything, in my thinking, that is more easily described as strategy in a lot of cases. The "Tactical" in Tactical Gamer in the past meant that serious, realistic play was found here. That may not be the literal sense of the word, but that is how it was always described on the net with players of various games. Tactical meant you worked together as a team with coordination to secure the objective(s) in a realistic game environment rather than running around like fools trying to be "l33t" and get as many kills as possible. But the real issue that I am speaking of is not so much that TG is no longer strictly "tactical realism" but that the realistic games are not being kept as realistic as they should be. If a TG member wants to play Pacman and there is enough interest to put up a server, go for it! If I don't care for the unrealistic gameplay, I simply won't join up and take part. Just as those who want to have less than realistic play on a game based on realism should not join said game and mess it up for others. I'm ok with there being two or three or more "camps" at TG. We just shouldn't step on each other's toes. Hell, I can remember playing the original Neverwinter Nights on a TG server. And that was fine, it wasn't realistic, but that wasn't the point of the game. It was fantasy and we were cool with that. But when we went into AA or GR, we wanted realistic, tactical play.

__________________