Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A needed discussion...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A needed discussion...

    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.


    The three basic tenents for every game here at TG. Simple, easy to understand, and not to hard to follow...

    Now, no where does it talk about boundaries, forcing a player to play only approved kits, or use only certain equipment. What is does say is respect your fellow players. Now, in multiple games we have situations that cause us to say certain areas are off limits, for the sake of realism. CS:S being a prime example. Defenders are not allowed in the offense's spawn point. There would be no reason for them to be there if they are following and maintaining their objective. BFx's uncapturable bases would be another example. If you can't capture the flag, it's not an objective. So it would follow, in real world tactics, that you would not waste resources trying to take it. Now, I'm going to pick on a few games here because I'm hoping I can shed some light as to what is going on in them.

    BFx series: I started playing BF 2 when it was first released and TG setup a server to play. We used real world tactics, the matches sometimes lasted forever. We would send snipers in to check an area out while the main armor force would wait in a base for thier report, then they would be sent to the target knowing what they had to deal with. The commander called the plans and squads responded in kind.

    The Run and Gun we see now is only a hairs breath from a Pub server, in my opinion. Everyone pony's up as medics, and all other kits are pushed to the wayside. This does not follow #3. In real world tactics, each squad has 1 medic, maybe 2, and their only job is keeping the squad fighting. I love this argument for the run and gun in 2142, in the future how do you know this wouldn't be the real world tactics??? It's simple, people do not want to get shot, it hurts even if you can be patched up instantly, you would still avoid going through the pain if you could avoid it. 2142's worst flaw is that everyone embraces a game mechanic that is completely unrealistic, as being near simulation realistic, which goes against TG's SOP. Please read #3 above for more explanation.

    With that said, There are ways to deal with this, first being the removal of instant revives. Having a squad gaurd their medic that has to take 30 secs to revive a squad member causes the whole game to slow down, because now each life is more precious now. It would cause the players to move slower and as a combined force, where other tactics and the utilizing of other kits abilities, become more apparent. Now, on to the second part of the fix, the admin team. I know the BFx series, and 2142 in perticular, is really hard to admin and keep a lid on what is following the TG SOP's. But, you need to take a hard look at yourselves and ask, are we promoting non TG gameplay because it's easier to admin or is it because that is the way you want your games to be run? I'm hoping it's the former and not the latter.

    COD 4: I've gotten to play this game a few times here at TG and I was imedietely turned off, not because of the game but, because of what people think game should be. Getting yelled at about boundries in a game that lends itself to be pretty strait forward about what the objectives are, it should be odvious where the defenders should be. With that said, you can cover your objective without sitting on top of it. If you can cover an entrance of a building from behind a hedge row better than being in the building or near it, it's called tactics, not a boundary violation. It seemed to me everyone was way too quick to call this out if they were caught by suprize. Tactics are there to stop the other side from winning, use them wisely and they will lead you far. And the last time I was in game, after said boundries where "removed", admins where still enforcing them. This shows a lack of comunication or down right insubordination within the admin team and it looks bad to new players. I stopped playing after that. But, I have heard about other issues.

    CouterStrike:Source: Now before everyone in the CS:S community freaks out, I put this here to help show how a game can be awesome. This game has been around for 6+ years. It was the game that drew me to TG. The admin team has always been top notch, even when Root was an admin. Read some of the old posts in the CS:S forums and you'll see what I mean.

    In my opinion, it should be a model for the rest of the TG community to follow. I'll try and explain. In CS:S you have basicly one objective, either complete an objective or gaurd against it being completed. The objective either being rescue hostages or plan a bomb. This model can be taken to any other game. In the case of BFx, each flag is a mini CS:S match. You have to have a plan(communication), you have to exicute it(teamwork) and you have to adjust it as the situation changes(tactics). The only difference is you flipflop on who's defense and offense, depending on who owns the flag. The same thing with COD 4.

    General Discussion: Now you notice I didn't add anything about boundries/what kit/what equipment is required. That is what planning is for. If you have someone that is better at CQB and your defending, put him as the last line of defense at the objective. If you have someone that's a crack shot at long range, get him in a spot where he can be utilized and watch the approaches to the objective, even if it's not near the objective. The key is he's defending the objective, and if he has to, or it's communicated that its needed, he can fall back to the objective and tighten the defense. This doesn't require strick boundries to enforce, only common sense. Instead of forcing everyone to play your style, learn to use other peoples strengths to your advantage, that is what makes great leaders. If you have a hard time recognizing players strengths, let them tell you what they think they are good at, communicate with your team, you may find you have more tools in the toolbox.

    http://www.tacticalgamer.com/counter...e-pcs-faq.html
    http://www.tacticalgamer.com/counter...standards.html

    I post these links because they say everything I'm trying to say about the level of play I have always expected in other games at TG and have always been disapointed when I didn't find it.

    Now, I know this may seem step on some peoples pride, I ask those people to take a moment and look at this objectively before flaming. I have tried to objectively show where some problems appear to lie and by bringing them to light publicly, we, as a community, can find common ground. The founders of TG have put an extrordinary amount of time and dedication to keep this community alive. While many of us take advantage of all that hard work, not many think about how it came be. It takes the community and the mindset the Primer is intended to instill to keep TG going, so everyone can enjoy all the games TG has to offer.
    sigpic





  • #2
    Re: A needed discussion...

    Definitely something to think about...
    Become a supporting member!
    Buy a Tactical Duck!
    Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
    TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A needed discussion...

      Originally posted by Xen View Post
      BFx series:
      The Run and Gun we see now is only a hairs breath from a Pub server, in my opinion. Everyone pony's up as medics, and all other kits are pushed to the wayside. This does not follow #3.
      Battlefield Vanilla doesn't lend itself to realistic tactics very well. It takes some extreme coordination between squads on both teams to pull it off and if either team doesn't play realistically then it just about forces the opposing team to play unreallistically as well. Anybody that likes playing slow-paced and tactically now plays PR. I agree that the Vanilla server should be as tactical as possible but with pubbies joining and whatnot it is hard to maintain a tactical environment.
      COD 4: I've gotten to play this game a few times here at TG and I was imedietely turned off, not because of the game but, because of what people think game should be. Getting yelled at about boundries in a game that lends itself to be pretty strait forward about what the objectives are, it should be odvious where the defenders should be.
      I disagree with the boundries set for COD4 as well and completely agree that not being allowed to flank the attackers ruins much of the tactics but I still play on TG servers because that is where the most teamwork can be found. However, the COD admins are hardset in their rules about boundries so I don't know that it will ever change.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A needed discussion...

        Originally posted by Xen View Post
        BFx series: The Run and Gun we see now is only a hairs breath from a Pub server, in my opinion. Everyone pony's up as medics, and all other kits are pushed to the wayside. This does not follow #3. In real world tactics, each squad has 1 medic, maybe 2, and their only job is keeping the squad fighting. I love this argument for the run and gun in 2142, in the future how do you know this wouldn't be the real world tactics??? It's simple, people do not want to get shot, it hurts even if you can be patched up instantly, you would still avoid going through the pain if you could avoid it. 2142's worst flaw is that everyone embraces a game mechanic that is completely unrealistic, as being near simulation realistic, which goes against TG's SOP. Please read #3 above for more explanation.
        BF2 is not PR, and BF2142 is not BF2.

        You can talk about slowing 2142 down when you also remove the ability to explosively and gloriously die instantly from a million different sources.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A needed discussion...

          My main argument for 2142 (the only game I play with regularity to have a justifiable opinion on) is the maps and the weapons given to each side. They are designed with choke points in mind, and the weapons restate this in their use and applications.

          Rockets are used as area denial tools to hold people off of flags or contain them in kill zones. Same applies with the vehicles and the engineer class: the mines stay stationary and will follow targets once they are within range, and there is another type of mine (EMP) that will disable a vehicle temporarily, completely denying them from moving onwards.

          As for tactics and squad movements, there is a great deal. It all happens very quickly and efficiently. You bring up the argument that the most played kit is medic, that's technically wrong; the kit is assault, and it has the ability to be a medic through kit unlocks. It so happens that the main infantry class is also the medic class. Other kits fall into squads quite nicely on some maps and areas, and terribly in others.

          You do bring up some good points, but I do have to say the 2142 we play at TG stays very true to the TG spirit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A needed discussion...

            Boundaries are no longer on the TG cod4 server but try getting them to realize that. The problem with COD4 at TG is the influx of BFx players. Instead of teaching them to play the objectives, as it was intended, tons of rules and boundaries where put in place to keep them in line. So if it would be taught to play the objective and not the area the TG COD4 servers would be exactly like the COD2 server was when it was in full bloom

            And the problem with the COD4 admins is they had to be harsh and rough in the rules because you had a group of players who liked to test and push those rules, but still stay with in the "gray" area of them. Much like was going on in the PR server. There are other issues but im not gonna go into that on the public forum.
            that sounds like a good idea trooper.
            -Vulcan

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A needed discussion...

              Originally posted by Xen View Post
              The Run and Gun we see now is only a hairs breath from a Pub server, in my opinion. Everyone pony's up as medics, and all other kits are pushed to the wayside. This does not follow #3. In real world tactics, each squad has 1 medic, maybe 2, and their only job is keeping the squad fighting. I love this argument for the run and gun in 2142, in the future how do you know this wouldn't be the real world tactics??? It's simple, people do not want to get shot, it hurts even if you can be patched up instantly, you would still avoid going through the pain if you could avoid it. 2142's worst flaw is that everyone embraces a game mechanic that is completely unrealistic, as being near simulation realistic, which goes against TG's SOP. Please read #3 above for more explanation.
              Has it occurred to you that people can have fun without hardcore simulation?

              And if you've acknowledged that, why even bother adding BF2142 to TG repertoir?

              And while you're at it -- are you honestly this in tune with the BF2142 community that you believe these proposed changes toward more realism and simulation would be viewed as "fun" by the majority? Because that's why I figured we were here for -- fun. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A needed discussion...

                he is using it as an example from which has been said many times by many TG wearing members.
                that sounds like a good idea trooper.
                -Vulcan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A needed discussion...

                  Call of Duty Search and Destroy is Professional Counter Strike but with different models.

                  And for that I present to you something you should most likely take a look at before hopping into our server.

                  CoD FAQ

                  And for the rest of your comments I would recommend that you take some time and take a look at all of the specific rules that havev been adapted to make those communities more viable in the "tactical genre" since a majority of the games you have "dabbled" in were coded to be played as a run and gun noob fest. Majority of the games you've commented on were created with either the Quake 4 or Unreal Engine and we all know that both of those engines really aren't focused on team based tactics but solo stat building. And again if you look at the Primer which can be found hot linked in my signature addresses that no member of Tactical Gamer will be a stat tracking player at any time.

                  This mature online gaming community is really based on like minded players using communication and tactical planning to complete their objectives. The only game here that allows for that on a scale you want is Armed Assault ARMA. If you have yet to experience that type of game play you sir are in for an amazing treat. So do yourself a favor sell off all of those other titles and go to your local retail store and pick up ARMA Gold and come see what we are about. Because the developers and coders for all of those other titles made maps that are not conducive to team based objective play and thus forced each admin team of that community to add to those basic rules to ensure a balanced and equal playing atmosphere on the battlefield. In short, there isnt a discussion that is required on your posting. What there needs to be is an eye opening experience for your short sightedness for the three communities you visited. Because the shortfalls of each of the titles has forced those communities to adapt new rules and guidance to ensure that they can remain as tactical and near simulation as possible. And if you dont know about the specific rules then yes you will find yourself out in the cold. Trust me I know first hand with being banned from BF2PR. :)


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A needed discussion...

                    Originally posted by Zhohar View Post
                    Has it occurred to you that people can have fun without hardcore simulation?

                    And if you've acknowledged that, why even bother adding BF2142 to TG repertoir?

                    And while you're at it -- are you honestly this in tune with the BF2142 community that you believe these proposed changes toward more realism and simulation would be viewed as "fun" by the majority? Because that's why I figured we were here for -- fun. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
                    This is part of the point I am making, here at TG, per the primer, we are to play in NEAR SIMULATION REALISM. It states it clearly in #3 of the Primer. That's the whole point of TG, to have fun while playing in NEAR SIMULATION. To disregard the primer because it interferes with your gameplay style, is telling the rest of the community that your game is exempt from what the rest of us have to do, and it appears that there is favortism towards your game over other games.

                    If you want to just run and gun, go to a server that enjoys that sort of play. I've been here since the start of the BF2+ appearance on the TG servers. And when the servers started we did play in near simulation, something changed and now as I have stated before it's only a hairs breath better then a PUB server. Most of the older players that started playing BF2 here, I never see on the servers any more, where's the respect for their fun? They've had to move on to other games, not because they don't enjoy playing the BFx series games themself, they stopped playing because the servers became no fun to play on any more.
                    sigpic




                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A needed discussion...

                      Originally posted by Xen View Post
                      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.
                      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:

                      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.
                      Originally posted by Xen View Post
                      BFx series: I started playing BF 2 when it was first released and TG setup a server to play. We used real world tactics, the matches sometimes lasted forever. We would send snipers in to check an area out while the main armor force would wait in a base for thier report, then they would be sent to the target knowing what they had to deal with. The commander called the plans and squads responded in kind.
                      The issues brought you brought up with 2142 relate closely to a realistic environment, which the game simply is not. If there was a desire to play this game realistically there would be a mod for it, just like we have the PR mod for BF2. Your desire to play this game this way helped to develop the PR mod and TG wholeheartly support that game with a server.

                      Originally posted by Xen View Post
                      The Run and Gun we see now is only a hairs breath from a Pub server, in my opinion. Everyone pony's up as medics, and all other kits are pushed to the wayside. This does not follow #3. In real world tactics, each squad has 1 medic, maybe 2, and their only job is keeping the squad fighting. I love this argument for the run and gun in 2142, in the future how do you know this wouldn't be the real world tactics??? It's simple, people do not want to get shot, it hurts even if you can be patched up instantly, you would still avoid going through the pain if you could avoid it. 2142's worst flaw is that everyone embraces a game mechanic that is completely unrealistic, as being near simulation realistic, which goes against TG's SOP. Please read #3 above for more explanation.
                      That is very far from what is actually going on in the server. I feel very strongly that we are far from being a "pub" server. The only way another server is tolerable to most of the 2142 player base is if they team up and show another server what teamwork really is. As Anospa said, there are only four classes to choose from, the Assault is the most played because it has great assault capabilities and the ability to revive downed players. But as for being unrealistic, please see the quote from Asch's post, Simulation does not equal only to realism.

                      So while bring this issue up is fine, you really can't group all of the games at tactical gamer into one group. Every game is different and each play-style is different, which was the reason the State of the Union post was made.

                      I realize to a lot of people coming from PR or Armed Assault, we look like a bunch of kids on crack with ADD, but there is a lot going on and we feel very strongly that there are a great deal of tactics and simulation going on in our movements. I feel it's insulting for the gamer's from the "realistic" games who feel it's necessary to basically tell us we're not playing the game the TG way. We love TG just as much as you do we just have a different idea of how 2142 should be played.

                      Originally posted by Xen View Post
                      This is part of the point I am making, here at TG, per the primer, we are to play in NEAR SIMULATION REALISM. It states it clearly in #3 of the Primer.
                      This is simply not true, it was posted while I was making my post, but please note that simulation does not just equal realism.
                      Big-eye101: "A true catman post a day keeps the bad mood away"

                      Please do not take any posts made by Catman seriously. If you begin to take his posts seriously, please seek psychiatric attention.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A needed discussion...

                        you shouldn't have to set boundries
                        You should be close enough to your objectives. IMO
                        (CS:S players are freaks :P)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A needed discussion...

                          Originally posted by HAZMAT View Post
                          Call of Duty Search and Destroy is Professional Counter Strike but with different models.

                          And for that I present to you something you should most likely take a look at before hopping into our server.

                          CoD FAQ

                          And for the rest of your comments I would recommend that you take some time and take a look at all of the specific rules that havev been adapted to make those communities more viable in the "tactical genre" since a majority of the games you have "dabbled" in were coded to be played as a run and gun noob fest. Majority of the games you've commented on were created with either the Quake 4 or Unreal Engine and we all know that both of those engines really aren't focused on team based tactics but solo stat building. And again if you look at the Primer which can be found hot linked in my signature addresses that no member of Tactical Gamer will be a stat tracking player at any time.

                          This mature online gaming community is really based on like minded players using communication and tactical planning to complete their objectives. The only game here that allows for that on a scale you want is Armed Assault ARMA. If you have yet to experience that type of game play you sir are in for an amazing treat. So do yourself a favor sell off all of those other titles and go to your local retail store and pick up ARMA Gold and come see what we are about. Because the developers and coders for all of those other titles made maps that are not conducive to team based objective play and thus forced each admin team of that community to add to those basic rules to ensure a balanced and equal playing atmosphere on the battlefield. In short, there isnt a discussion that is required on your posting. What there needs to be is an eye opening experience for your short sightedness for the three communities you visited. Because the shortfalls of each of the titles has forced those communities to adapt new rules and guidance to ensure that they can remain as tactical and near simulation as possible. And if you dont know about the specific rules then yes you will find yourself out in the cold. Trust me I know first hand with being banned from BF2PR. :)
                          Frist off I was an ArmA admin until I could no long fullfill my obligation to TheBigC, and as for "dabbling" comment, I did alot more then dabble in these games. I've always been active on the forums in each of these games, with the exception of COD 4. In that case, yes I only dabbled, but I made sure I read the SOP for the game before joining the server. Secondly, it's the players that decide how the game is played, falling back on "the game was made that way" doesn't work, ArmA turned into a run and gun for alittle while when the 1.14 patch came out and they released warfare or whatever the damn style where each person is a squad leader and you bought NPC squad members. Again, it's the players that decide how fast or slow a game is, not the engine, if you can't control the flow of the game as an admin, look into ways of changing that. Finally, you might want to check the forum for each of the games above, including ArmA. I'm a member of ArmA's and CS:S development team. I've always contributed and brought issues up for discussion. Also, unless Vulcan changes his mind, I'm a Temp Admin for CS:S, hoping to become a full admin.
                          sigpic




                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A needed discussion...

                            So should the entire 2142 community just pull up and leave?
                            |TG-8th|RAGE


                            SigPic provided by

                            * * *
                            I am a proud former IRRegular!
                            *****

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A needed discussion...

                              Originally posted by rage4order View Post
                              So should the entire 2142 community just pull up and leave?
                              Im pretty sure thats not what he means... but on the other hand, drastic changes comes with drastic measures...


                              As for CoD4.... even though I have just got this title... to say that the communication is on par with PCS is a fallacy. With all due respect, this statement couldnt be farther from the truth. I have played on the cod server for over a week now, and I have yet to hear ANYONE besides myself utter more of a plan than "B" or "A"... seriously. That is not planning in the slightest bit. On the PCS server, noone leaves spawn until a clear cut plan is in place... if they do leave without the bomb and plan, they are booted immediately. Hell Ive had on multiple occasions, said something to TG tagged players on the CoD4 server about sprinting off alone without anyone even picking the bomb up, much less coming up with plan of any kind. The response I got was VERY off-putting. So, in my short time on the server with several tagged players, I have to respectfully and strongly disagree that the CoD4 search and destroy server is NOWHERE close to the communication, teamwork and planning that occurs on a regular basis on the PCS server.


                              The solution is quite simple really, and has been effectively in place for several years on the PCS server. Set the rules. If someone doesnt follow them, warn them. Once they are warned and informed about our rules and expectations, if they keep disregarding the very essence of TG, be gone with them. By no circumstance should any of these players that disregard the rules, be allowed to linger.
                              Dizlor


                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X