Changes coming to Tactical Gamer

**Apophis** · 09-28-2007, 02:44 PM

Over many years we have seen Tactical Gamer grow and change as the community and games have evolved. This growth has presented us with a large number of both simple and complex hurdles that we have needed to overcome in order to survive. As with any change, we’re not going to be able to please everyone and we are forced to make an educated decision on what direction to move.

In the years past, Tactical Gamer was primarily focused on tactical first person shooters along the lines of Ghost Recon, Counter-Strike, Operation Flashpoint and SWAT. The overall philosophy of Tactical Gamer was built around this type of game and all was well. More recently we’ve begun bringing on games that don’t fit the original mold of Tactical Gamer. So why have we brought them on? Because we’re a community of gamers and friends and I want to make sure that I provide the resources and games the community is interested in. Unfortunately, this has not been without its share of challenges.

We sit now with a variety of new and interesting games coming out that our community is interested in. Many of these games simply don’t work well with our existing philosophy so the decision needed to be made regarding the support of these games and/or the modification of the Tactical Gamer philosophy. I want to support the games, but I’m not willing to do it at the sacrifice of the Tactical Gamer primer. But I do have a solution…

As you can see by looking in our forums, there have been four new major sections added:

Military / Simulation
Tactical / Action
Teamwork / Entertainment
Mass Multiplayer Online

All of the forums that currently reside in the “Game Specific Forums” section will be moved to one of these new sections based on the type of game, and gameplay, that Tactical Gamer expects within each variant. For example; Armed Assault, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and other forums such as the TGRL and Falcon forums will be moved into the “Military / Simulation” category. Games such as Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142 and Counter-Strike source will be moved into “Tactical / Action”. Games such as Team Fortress 2 will reside in “Teamwork / Entertainment”.

So what does all of this do? Well, to start with the TG primer will be re-written to focus more on the overall standard of conduct and behavior that is expected from ANY game that Tactical Gamer supports. This will include things such as language, non-exclusive communication, respect for your fellow gamer, conflict resolution, etc. From there, each new game category at TG will have its own category-specific primer. If you’re playing on any of the Military / Simulation servers there will be CLEAR expectations on how you should behave and what type of gameplay we allow and those expectations will be considerable. Likewise, there will be a clear set of expectations for the Teamwork / Entertainment games that is less restrictive and based more on having fun than treating the game like a hardcore simulation.

Will this solve all the problems? Certainly not. We’re still going to be faced with a segment of the population looking to play Armed Assault death-match style and another percentage trying to play Team Fortress 2 like it was Ghost Recon. We will still have conflicts when a regular player of a Tactical / Action game hops on a Military / Simulation server and hasn’t taken the time to understand what the requirements and SOPs are for that style game. At least if we have something to point to, it should make all of our lives easier.

The names of the categories as well as the individual game assignments are still under review and should NOT be considered permanent at this stage in the game. Please do not start screaming because you think a game should be in one category over another. The sky isn’t falling and the world isn’t about to end. I am willing to entertain any CONSTRUCTIVE comments regarding game placement or category ideas, so feel free to pass them along if you have them.

I appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this period of transition.

**Pokerface** · 09-28-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

The names of the categories as well as the individual game assignments are still under review and should NOT be considered permanent at this stage in the game.

... and under which heading does THIS game go? :P

**Apophis** · 09-28-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

... and under which heading does THIS game go? :P

LOL. "THIS" game goes under simulation I think. It's caused my entire week to be simulated hell. I've been putting out fires and having endless streams of PMs sent to me rather than actually getting these new games prepped to roll out and be available. Yup. Simulation it is!

Drizzid · 09-28-2007, 03:10 PM

Your approach to this change I personally feel is a good approach. Your keeping the overall philosophy of what makes TG so great but broadening it's horizon and allowing a bit of flexibility to the different types of games and different types of players

**Eroak** · 09-28-2007, 03:13 PM

I love changes and new challanges. I knew something was comming, but you always know how to make the right dicessions and make the right moves. I am excited to see how everything turns out boss. Keep up the excellent work!

**kormendi** · 09-28-2007, 03:15 PM

Very nice to see this happening. Although it may rub some folks the wrong way, I think this is necessary for the community to expand and stay relevant in the ever changing gaming world.

Here's to exciting times ahead.

edit: I like the new SM/admin icons.

**Exploding_Silver** · 09-28-2007, 03:26 PM

So the way I read this is;

TG Primer applies to all game categories and all games in those categories
Game category primer applies to all games in that category
(not stated, but continuing the logic) Server rules come from the meeting of the game category primer and the ingame dynamics

I see this working very well, a new system for the next decade

corporate · 09-28-2007, 03:33 PM

I say good call.

These new games on the horizon get played in very different ways. Applying the typical rules we have in POE/PR to the new fast paced TF2 would cause all sorts of issues.

I propose that Crysis and ET:QW be placed in the Tactical / Action category. While the nanosuit in Crysis apparently allows for large leaps into the air this should be allowed because it's intended and reasonable within the context of the game. I don't think this should be considered an exploit like "bunny hoppping" that we see and dislike in BF2/POE2/PR. Of course, I may be getting ahead of myself here having not played the game yet but I would not want to see unique features of a new game disallowed by external rules before it even has a chance to get off the ground.

We have a great community here and these issues need to be aired out to get everyone on the same page.

LONG LIVE TG!

**Apophis** · 09-28-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exploding_Silver

So the way I read this is;

TG Primer applies to all game categories and all games in those categories
Game category primer applies to all games in that category
(not stated, but continuing the logic) Server rules come from the meeting of the game category primer and the ingame dynamics

I see this working very well, a new system for the next decade

That is absolutely correct. The TG Primer will be all-encompassing and will define what you need to do in order to successfully participate in the community as a whole. Each category will have their own primer that applies to the games within that category. Those primers will focus on the level of realism expected for the category and define the overall look and feel.

Game-specific rules will apply to each game individually, but as always, they will need to still adhere to the TG primer and the game category primer.

As far as the Tactical Gamer Community Game Development forum/group. I'm still not sure how to roll that out. I want to give the supporting member base of TG a way to help feel out new games, test their stability, and figure out where the games should end up within TG, but I don't want another re-enactment of TF2 in the process. In the past, throwing up un-branded public servers has worked in terms of stability, admin tools and being able to spot problems within the game environment that need to get addressed. But if the community was more pro-active in that process, I think we would have a better end result.

**Apophis** · 09-28-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corporate

I say good call.

These new games on the horizon get played in very different ways. Applying the typical rules we have in POE/PR to the new fast paced TF2 would cause all sorts of issues.

I propose that Crysis and ET:QW be placed in the Tactical / Action category. While the nanosuit in Crysis apparently allows for large leaps into the air this should be allowed because it's intended and reasonable within the context of the game. I don't think this should be considered an exploit like "bunny hoppping" that we see and dislike in BF2/POE2/PR. Of course, I may be getting ahead of myself here having not played the game yet but I would not want to see unique features of a new game disallowed by external rules before it even has a chance to get off the ground.

We have a great community here and these issues need to be aired out to get everyone on the same page.

LONG LIVE TG!

Well, you do bring up another good point. We have core game engines like BF2 that we use to host multiple mods. The classification of a mod build off the BF2 engine may very well change from mod to mod. So we will most likely end up seeing the BFx mods split off from the BFx forum into their own forums.

That move does make sense to me, as BFx is the only game we lump together like this. We run and have run a variety of HLDS/Source/Orangebox based mods such as CSS, NS, TF2, DoD Source, etc. and they all have their own unique forums.

Bc2ID · 09-28-2007, 03:49 PM

I think this will work out extremely well. It should clear up a lot of confusion...you mean I cannot play ArmA rambo style???

Brilliant move.

B

**WhiskeySix** · 09-28-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

the BFx mods split off from the BFx forum into their own forums.

eggggggggggggsellent.

**Melee** · 09-28-2007, 04:48 PM

It all makes perfect sense to me. That's why you get the big bucks, Apophis!

P8riot · 09-28-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exploding_Silver

I see this working very well, a new system for the next decade

Well put Silver.

I've been on the periphery of what has been going on and watching TF2 events unfold from a comfortable distance and I believe that this is perhaps the most solid structure with which to make a new start that should encompass the larger audience that TG has grown to embrace.

Cheers!

Daxx · 09-28-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

LOL. "THIS" game goes under simulation I think. It's caused my entire week to be simulated hell. I've been putting out fires and having endless streams of PMs sent to me rather than actually getting these new games prepped to roll out and be available. Yup. Simulation it is!

Heh, well then extra thanks for switching my name so promptly

Not going to lie. One of the primary reasons I left TG several years ago was the hardcore focus on "realism" and military simulation games. I've always played games as an escape from reality, and if I wanted to simulate a "realistic" military encounter, I go play Paintball. That at least punishes you(personally) beyond having time to go take a piss if you get shot

On the flip side of that, I do enjoy employing teamwork inside a game. Games like Team Fortress 2 and World of Warcraft appeal far more towards my idea of "gaming" while still having a vast opportunity for team play.

I'm perfectly willing to support something I enjoy, so speaking of such, any plans to expand beyond PayPal?