Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

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

  • Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

    I'm curious as to how intentionally smacking people with a galaxy is interpreted according to the TG Primer and the Outfit SOPs. Galaxies are tough and with a little (VR Training) practice you can ram and destroy even ground targets like harassers with no expectation of death. Would this count as suicidal intent and be forbidden behavior? I don't see it that way but it's not my place to interpret the rules.


    A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

  • #2
    Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

    While it is funny to see, it does violate the primer I think, Here's just one example:
    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 planetside has non-realistic to real life vehicles, the same point applies. In the real world I do not see transport choppers smacking tanks into the ground. We should not act this way in planetside either.

    Thanks for pointing it out Suzuka
    |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

      Di1lweed nailed it. Thanks for bringing it up.




      * *

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

        It seems to me that the game is specifically designed for that kind of behavior, though. Why would you get bonus exp for ramming other vehicles to death if it was an 'exploit' being 'leveraged'? A Galaxy is indeed not a transport chopper, it's a hulking, hardened metal behemoth that gives it's pilot bonus exp for using the hull itself as a weapon.



        Edit: Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious.


        A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

          The simple answer is that we don't base what we do in game on whether it nets us points. Making a suicide C4 flash run at a loaded sundy will net you gobs of points but that's not what we're about.




          * *

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

            "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. "


            If your previous comment was meant to be a ruling by an official Drona, then this is a moot point and I will accept that ruling.

            However, assuming it was not meant to seal the issue because you did not so state, and did not close the thread.
            Ramming a ship was for centuries a real world tactic. Going back to ancient times, and ships were in fact built with rams on the bow expressly for this purpose. So it was a legitimate tactic in the real world. It only stopped being a real world tactic when it technology made it ineffective and suicidal.

            But in planetside 2 it is not suicidal for a gal to ram another aircraft, in fact there is almost no chance of the gal being destroyed. And it is effective. So I am confused as to how this violates the primer.

            Are we presuming that the galaxy will not survive, so this is a suicide tactic? Or are we presuming the galaxy is ramming land targets not air?
            The question foremost in my mind is "what will bring the most tactical fun to the server?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

              This topic dates back a long way in TG. I can remember BF2 days when people would strap C4 onto jeeps and drive them toward enemies and bail and detonate at the last minute. This wasn't suicidal at all, but it was considered bad practice. This carries over to any game with the mechanics to behave in such a manner.

              The consensus has always been the same. This behavior is not acceptable within a TG environment by people who have signed the primer. PS2 is a large game, so consider yourself lucky to not have people in the server who are "allowed" to suicide because they haven't signed the primer. Trust me, this takes on a whole new aspect when you're on a 64 player server and half the players act like this and you're not allowed to.

              With all that being said, if I can add my .02 to this...

              doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics
              ^ This tells me that, in PS2 specifically, suicide runs may be acceptable. When you take into account the number of players you have doing a single attack, it would be a very real-world tactic to sacrifice one or two soldiers for the greater good but that depends on race (see below)... I think a lot of members of TG misinterpret this section of the primer to say...

              Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world *US* 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
              And, quite frankly, it doesn't. Personally, I think this section of the primer is vague. I think that if the forefathers who wrote the primer wanted us to not use tactics that may be considered wrong in the United States, then they would have specified that. Furthermore, I think this section of the primer says, in layman's terms, "Discuss and employ tactics with your team, but do not cheat or use exploits in the game."

              I think this comes down to what simulation you consider the game to be. If the community thinks that the NC would use suicide tactics strategically, then it should be allowed. If the community thinks the NC wouldn't use said tactics, then they should be disallowed. Whether or not the Gal CAN do something is moot when it comes to this. It's a matter of what the community at TG thinks would or would not be a viable tactic for the race in question. I can't see the NC using these tactics, but I don't know for sure.

              But before we just say, "This is what the primer says," about something that is really vague, we should consider the real-world reference.

              Would it be a valid tactic to suicide a zero into a boat in a WW2 game? I believe it would because that was a real-world tactic. The problem is that the primer says "real-world" tactics, and about 60% of the games we play will never be "real-world". We have to speculate as to whether or not these advanced races would use suicide or borderline suicide tactics.

              Mom
              Last edited by YerMom; 10-29-2013, 11:00 PM.
              Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
              Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

              You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
              Forever Perplexed

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                The naval ram was a viable tactic in antiquity.

                The aerial ram was, for the most part, a suicide tactic used only when the enemy's aircraft significantly outclassed yours.

                Air-to-ground ramming was never a thing.

                There might be a precedent for air-to-air ramming, but air-to-ground ramming seems like something that only works because of how absurdly high they had to tweak the Galaxy's armor in order to make it survivable against ESF and flak.

                WRT YerMom,

                We've had this discussion with respect to Planetside 2 before, and I think the consensus that the admin team came to (I was a PS2 admin at the time) was that despite it's insurgent/rebel backstory, the New Conglomerate functions exactly like a "conventional" fighting force. Combined arms, open warfare. If all they gave the NC was unarmed Harassers and C4 then sure, we'd be using that tactic. But you can bet that if the Taliban had thousands of MBTs they could pull out of thin air, they wouldn't be using suicide tactics either.

                The lore might say we're terrorists, but the gameplay doesn't support that at all. The NC are conventional forces.
                Teamwork and Tactics are OP


                Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                  Heh. Actually, the naval ram was also a tactic in the last few hundred years. Ironclad warships had many strategies based around ramming their opponents, since their weapons were almost completely useless against each other (and a single dramatically effective example of a ramming attack gave the tactic a bit of an inflated reputation). But that's nitpicking.

                  Like I said the last time it came up, I think the lore backs up a more suicidal approach to warfare, given that materiel is literally fabricated out of this air and death is a minor inconvenience. However, I've never thought that banning explicit ramming/sacrificial tactics really takes anything crucial out of the game, so I'm perfectly happy to accept that ruling.



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                    I will consider the matter closed and decided by the admin team. I suggest you close the thread.
                    The question foremost in my mind is "what will bring the most tactical fun to the server?"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                      I guess I'll do the same as Garthra and consider that a resounding no, even though the discussion and reasons are far from satisfying. I just don't understand, I suppose. My real question now is why did the thread turn into talking about suicide tactics? Is it suicidal to hit enemies with your Gal even if you know you won't take any damage? I had been hoping to discuss Galaxy ramming, not just ramming in general, as it seems to be a different use case than trying to hit people with a Reaver. Oh well.


                      A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                        Originally posted by Garthra View Post
                        I will consider the matter closed and decided by the admin team. I suggest you close the thread.
                        I don't have a problem with folks having discussions about these types of issues. It does sometimes seem like we have these conversations too frequently but such is the nature of folks' subjective interpretation of the Primer and supporting documents. We want to get everyone on the same page. Part of that process, for me at least, is listening to folks' opinions and observing their game play and in game interactions. When folks remain out of agreement with the admin team's assessment on an issue, we still have a problem because those players will inevitably have other Primer related questions they can not answer on their own.

                        Folks brought up suicide tactics to draw the analogy that just because you can perform a particular action in game, it doesn't mean you should...even if the game rewards you for the action and even if the game lore downplays the consequences of death or equipment loss.

                        As Strait says, "air-to-ground ramming seems like something that only works because of how absurdly high they had to tweak the Galaxy's armor in order to make it survivable against ESF and flak." That's my take on it as well, that the Gal is buffed to discourage ESF kamikazes, the unintended side effect being that it is able to squash ground vehicles, which, as Di1l pointed out, is in conflict with Primer # 3. It's also an improper use of an air cavalry transport/assault vehicle. If this was skinned as a present day game, for instance, the Gal analog might be a V-22 Osprey or similar craft. You would not belly flop onto an IFV or tank with such a craft.

                        In any case, folks should be focusing their collected attention on the "...doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics..." side of the equation. For our purposes, in the context of PS2, that means behaving like we are part of a large, conventional, well coordinated and well equipped, combined arms force.




                        * *

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                          I confess that sometimes I don't totally understand how titles that have a science fiction or fantasy theme can be compatible with statements in the primer that are based on the "real world". The worlds of many games aren't based on reality at all. For that reason, I can understand why topics like this come up often. Trying to rationalise a tactic as legitimate using some real world historical anecdotes seems a bit pointless unless it's a game that is at the very least, an approximation of reality (a simulation). I'm not convinced that PS2 is a simulation of anything.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                            Looking closely at #3 in the primer, I could see an interpretation of that that as "exploits (undesigned features of the game outside the spirit of the original design) aren't ever allowed". In a game like Project Reality where the intent is to be as close to actual mil-sim as possible, that would support a very strict interpretation. In games with looser or more fantastical design intent, it would be fuzzier.

                            I'm a little uncomfortable even with that, personally. Emergent and even wildly unintended behaviour can transform games in amazing ways. Skiing in Tribes 1 was an exploit by any reasonable definition, but became such a defining and unique movement system of the series that every other entry in the series recreated it as a core institution of the game (In Tribes2 by making bunny-hopping automatic when the key is held down, and in all other sequels by simply removing friction outright when the spacebar is held). Tribes as we know it wouldn't exist without that initial exploit, and it became a drastically more interesting and unique game as a result.

                            This is philosophical and semantic quibbling, obviously. I'm on board with the spirit of the clause (stop people from ruining the spirit of the game with engine/design exploits) as well as the specific application of that logic here (Galaxies ramming ground vehicles seems to cross a line), but my worry is that strict interpretations of the primer have the potential to stop interesting evolutions in the ways games are played.

                            Also, mandatory disclaimer that I'm happy to accept admin ruling on the subject, etc.



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Galaxy Ramming and the TG Primer

                              I would like to begin by stating that I do not try to intentionally ram any enemy aircraft while flying my battle Gal. I always try to put my gunners in an advantageous firing position, which often includes closing the distance to enemy aircraft. Some times, in the chaos of combat, we accidentally get a little too close and collide. Other times, enemies (intentionally or not) run into me of their own volition.

                              Now, on to the rest...

                              Originally posted by CoiledTortoise View Post
                              I confess that sometimes I don't totally understand how titles that have a science fiction or fantasy theme can be compatible with statements in the primer that are based on the "real world". The worlds of many games aren't based on reality at all. For that reason, I can understand why topics like this come up often. Trying to rationalise a tactic as legitimate using some real world historical anecdotes seems a bit pointless unless it's a game that is at the very least, an approximation of reality (a simulation). I'm not convinced that PS2 is a simulation of anything.
                              Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
                              Looking closely at #3 in the primer, I could see an interpretation of that that as "exploits (undesigned features of the game outside the spirit of the original design) aren't ever allowed". In a game like Project Reality where the intent is to be as close to actual mil-sim as possible, that would support a very strict interpretation. In games with looser or more fantastical design intent, it would be fuzzier.

                              I'm a little uncomfortable even with that, personally. Emergent and even wildly unintended behaviour can transform games in amazing ways. Skiing in Tribes 1 was an exploit by any reasonable definition, but became such a defining and unique movement system of the series that every other entry in the series recreated it as a core institution of the game (In Tribes2 by making bunny-hopping automatic when the key is held down, and in all other sequels by simply removing friction outright when the spacebar is held). Tribes as we know it wouldn't exist without that initial exploit, and it became a drastically more interesting and unique game as a result.

                              This is philosophical and semantic quibbling, obviously. I'm on board with the spirit of the clause (stop people from ruining the spirit of the game with engine/design exploits) as well as the specific application of that logic here (Galaxies ramming ground vehicles seems to cross a line), but my worry is that strict interpretations of the primer have the potential to stop interesting evolutions in the ways games are played.

                              Also, mandatory disclaimer that I'm happy to accept admin ruling on the subject, etc.
                              This is always where any grey area has come for me (in the past). SS and Coiled make good points, The Primer is very easy to apply to games that very closely approximate real world conditions (i.e., PR, BF series, ArmA, etc.) but what about when the world is a sci-fi / fictional / more fantastical one?

                              We could get into a semantical argument about the lore, etc. and sometimes there are some good arguments to be made there as well, although IMO, usually wrt other topics. I think the topic of this thread (Gal ramming) is a little more clear cut.

                              YerMom makes some good arguments wrt suicide tactics being employed by certain factions in certain games (totally allowed by insurgent forces in BF2 series and spinoffs such as PR for example). But as Drona correctly points out, NC are not handicapped equipment wise compared to the other factions in this game, and therefore are considered conventional forces (I mean, just as one small example, we have the strongest MBT of all factions for Chrissakes!).

                              At the end of the day, the key phrase to focus on is:

                              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
                              We choose to win by taking the high ground (literally and figuratively), employing combined arms to good effect, good squad/platoon cohesion, good comms, good coordination with allies (through NCC and/or Command channel), etc. instead of some of the other (sometimes very clear and cheesy) exploits such as glitching beacons, firing through shields, etc.
                              "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw



                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X