Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

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

  • GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

    Background
    With the release of BF3 we have seen an influx of new players, a return of many TG veterans, and the mixing of players from a variety of backgrounds and games. As a result there have been many discussions and questions about how the Primer applies in regards to BF3, how realistic (or not) it is, and how to play BF3 the TG way. Let’s start with the big picture and what we’re about, the TG way summarized:

    Tactical Gamer's niche is mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives.

    Each part of that simple statement is equally important:
    • Mature
    • Teamwork oriented
    • Focus on the objectives


    Many of you will wonder where "realism" fits into this niche. When Tactical Gamer was much smaller in size we traditionally hosted games like Ghost Recon, America's Army, and Operation Frontlines. These games contained more features focused on realism. There is an active group of people who prefer games in the military-simulator (MilSim) genre, and Tactical Gamer was created to cater to that group. This inherently led to folks believe that Tactical Gamer was only about "realism". This is not the case, not every game makes a good candidate for a MilSim experience.

    The belief that Tactical Gamer was only about realism often led to questions about our support for game titles that definitely did not fall into this realm. The Tactical Gamer primer was created to try and address this.

    The Primer
    The Primer lays out the principles that Tactical Gamer was founded on:
    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 primer is a reflection of how we want to play. If you read the primer and think "this is my vision of gaming nirvana", then you're home. If you're playing with a bunch of TG'ers, this is what they're looking forward to also. This is why they wear the tags. This is how they wish everyone played, regardless of the name on the server or the [TG] tags in the game. It's the philosophy that drew us all to TG in the first place.

    Application of the Primer
    The first two tenets are pretty straight forward and don't need much explanation or discussion. Don't grief less experienced players. Don't swear or complain incessantly because you like the sound of your own voice. If teams are unbalanced, balance them. Have patience with inexperienced teammates and help them along. Basically, don’t be a jerk, and contribute in a positive way to the community and game environment.

    The Primer is carefully written, and it's more than some intangible collection of zen-like guidelines. It is required reading, and you are expected to read it, understand it, and adhere to it. So I'm not going to reinterpret it, or write a easy-reading summary, but let’s discuss the third principle and pay attention to the particular words “Support game play in a near-simulation environment” and how they apply to us.

    When we refer to simulation, we speak of playing the game within the confines of the world the game creates. Simulation does not equal realism. However, even if BF3 isn’t MilSim or realism focused, our niche is still mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives. And we're not going to let BF3's inherent lack of realism be an excuse for "anything goes".

    The players should immerse themselves in the world created by the game and not break the simulation by gaming the game, using exploits, or game engine shortcomings. In addition, the use of real-world tactics and strategies, is encouraged, expected, and even required. If you're not certain what this means, Tactical Gamer University is a great way to learn more. Suicide tactics will always be prohibited, as will bunny hopping, nascar driving and a variety of things that have no place in the simulation of modern armies that BF3 provides.

    Closing thoughts and expectations
    The people we want to be a part of our community are the ones who look to the Primer and the general community and to some extent want to realize the environment laid out in the primer. That’s the bare minimum required.

    But given that we have 25,000 TG members, and several hundred people passing through our BF3 server every night, there’s a wide range of opinion of where the bar should be set beyond that, there will be differences of opinion and preferences and that is perfectly ok.

    What we 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.

    Mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives. There is more than one way to accomplish that and still adhere to the principles of the primer.

    And when it comes to the primer, and the BF3 environment, you need to take responsibility for creating the environment laid out in the primer. The admin team cannot do it for you. We can deal with trouble makers, we can address technical issues, server settings, arrange events, and generally support you. But it's your responsibility as a TG member to strive towards the environment of the Primer. Lead when you are squad leader, follow when you are not, keep the teams balanced, act with maturity and respect and be an example to our visitors, and report problems when they occur.

    If the admin team can help in any way, please let us know.
    Last edited by Iamthefallen; 01-19-2012, 05:18 PM.


  • #2
    Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

    Originally posted by Fallen
    There should be a mutual understanding of these different preferences instead of a chasm between the varying groups of players.
    Within any community there are going to be different play styles and opinions. But remember what brought you all here in the first place - Teamwork, Tactics, Communication, Maturity, etc.
    Skud


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

      Sometimes we all get lost in the details but at the basic level this is why I am here....

      Teamwork, Tactics, Communication, Maturity, Great Friends, etc.
      Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

        Where does driving a tank through the lagoon in a TG scrim fit with the primer as described above?
        Beatnik

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

          The lagoon is shallow enough to drive a tank through it.
          Theoretically, a tank should be water-tight if it's submerged at the right level.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

            Originally posted by Beatnik View Post
            Where does driving a tank through the lagoon in a TG scrim fit with the primer as described above?
            I believe under the heading describing the acceptable use of Shark Tanks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

              Ah. Ok. Seemed more to be "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" from my perspective.
              Beatnik

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                Originally posted by Beatnik View Post
                "leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine..."
                The third part of the primer is clearly the most contentious part. The rest of it seems pretty straightforward. The statement I quoted in particular seems open to a wide range of interpretation.

                What does leveraging exploits provided to the players by the design of the game engine mean?

                I think the problem in its interpretation lies in it having a double meaning.
                Meaning 1: game design that does not support "real world" tactics or strategy.
                By restricting the assaults on uncapturable bases it allows this occurrence to happen in spite of the game’s limitations. It allows both teams to organize and present themselves in a strategic and tactical manner without having their lack of situational awareness exploited by the opposing team.
                The above quote from the primer applies the concept of exploit to the game Design. The game allows one team to attack the uncap, but attacking the uncap stops the other team from planing any sort of realistic tactics.

                Meaning 2: Game engine glitching that is more of what we traditionally think of as "exploit".
                Most players understand that wall hacking, giving yourself the ability to see through walls and artificially increase your situational awareness (SA), is highly frowned upon. Almost all gaming communities and gamers consider wall hacking to be a cheat and will kick and/or ban any player caught. Unfortunately, in some game engines the maps have flaws that allow you to see through solid structures due to glitches in the actual design of the map. This is not an intentional feature of the map and should be considered just as bad as intentional wall hacking.

                Within Tactical Gamer, ANY activity that capitalizes on the limitations of a game to provide the advantage rather than that advantage coming from superior teamwork, strategy and tactics, is frowned upon. We all want to win when we play, but the focus at Tactical Gamer should be one of winning with some sort of dignity, honor, and skill, not because you were able to out-exploit the other team or box them into a corner built on technological weakness that gives you the advantage.
                The above quote from the primer applies the concept of exploit to the game Engine.

                I think we all agree that exploiting the game Engine is just plain wrong. We don't purposely try to crawl under rocks or hide our bodies by clipping into walls. We don't purposely shoot at people behind rocks hoping our bullets will clip through the rock edge. We do not revive people through walls or knife a random foot sticking through a wall. We do not purposely try to jump to take advantage of the hit box problems that arise when you jump (depending on the game).

                Another way to state that third part of the primer is that we do what we can to use real life combat strategy and tactics given the limits of the game design and we do not exploit the game engine by glitching stuff.

                The high pitched debates that pop up from time to time really seem to focus on making rules to overcome a game design that does not support "real world" tactics or strategy, rather than exploiting the game engine.

                Rules like: no attacking ucb, no nascar driving, no bunny hopping and no suicide tactics are in place to encourage realism despite the limits of the game design. Recent thread topics like: no mines on mcoms, no using a long range sniper rifle in close quarters, not using a medic revive train as a tactic, or driving a tank through a lagoon all seem to focus on increasing real world tactics by making rules to overcome a limit in the game design.

                TG has moved in a direction AWAY from making rules to support real world tactical play when the title is not a "milsim" title. I think that is great. I enjoy the arcade like atmosphere and less restricted environment that 2142, TF2 and ETQW at TG offered. I think bf3 at TG should take a less restrictive approach with respect to rules on our server. The gameplay as it is designed is fantastic and fun. I really don't think we need to change much to allow for tactical play. The distinction between BF3 as milsim or action is between using real world tactics and using tactics that are inspired by real world tactics. In action titles, we use tactics that are inspired by real world tactics, but expressed within the constraints of the game design. This means things like medic trains are valid tactics in an action title, while in a milsim title they would be terribly out of place.

                We all need to be on the same page here. Some of us are playing this like it is a milsim title, others are playing it like it is an action title and most of us are in the middle, playing it as a tactical title. The result is argument and friction depending on how strongly mislim, action, or tactical you think the title should be.

                I think there are only 2 solutions here.
                1. Have a dedicated Milsim focused server AND dedicated Action focused server AND a dedicated Tactical focused server.
                2. Find an acceptable middle ground, maturely discuss our differences and accept a compromise on rules and server settings. Tactical games fall in the middle, we are not action, we are not milsim, we are sort of both, the good and the bad.

                The major problem with both these solutions is that the action and tactical title people that play bf3 on TG outnumber the milsim people by a significant ratio. If we split the community, the mislim server will not have enough players to populate it given the game design. BF3 is designed to be played with a fairly large number of players. I just do not see us having enough people to play bf3 as a milsim title. If we have only 1 server for bf3 and it is very milsim oriented, then the action and tactical crowed will be unhappy. If we have only 1 server here and it is too action oriented, the milsim and tactical crowd will be unhappy. No easy solutions here. We need to find a balance with a single tactical server or break up the community.
                Last edited by sc1ence; 02-02-2012, 06:51 PM. Reason: Posted a rough draft of ending instead of final draft. Fixed it when I got back to my computer, few hours between edits.

                “Up, sluggard, and waste not life; in the grave will be sleeping enough!” Benjamin Franklin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                  "rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine"

                  -oG.WarrioR-


                  |?|

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                    Originally posted by sc1ence View Post
                    We all need to be on the same page here. Some of us are playing this like it is a milsim title and others are playing it like it is an action title. The result is argument and friction depending on how strongly mislim or action you think the title should be.

                    I think there are only 2 solutions here.
                    1. Have a dedicated Milsim focused server AND dedicated Action focused server.
                    2. Find an acceptable middle ground and maturely discuss our differences and accept a compromise on rules and server settings.

                    The major problem with both these solutions is that the action title people that play bf3 on TG outnumber the milsim people by at least a 10:1 ratio. If we split the community, the mislim server will not have enough players to populate it given the game design. BF3 is designed to be played with a fairly large number of players. I just do not see us having enough people to play bf3 as a milsim title. If we have only 1 server for bf3 and it is very milsim oriented, then the action crowed be unhappy. If we have only 1 server here and it is too action oriented, the milsim crowd be unhappy. No easy solutions here.
                    Sc1ence, excellent post. I would like to add something from my personal experience at TG since 2005. I came to TG thru Counterstrike Source, and at the time, we had Root as GO. Now, not many people that play today will remember Root. He was a hardarse about the Primer and the level of playstyle that it dictated. He would not hesitate if he saw someone either breaching the primer, and he was consistant. The Primer, to Root it seemed, was not something that changed from game to game, it was the one constant that any TG member could look forward to seeing applied on all games at TG equally. When BF2 beta came to TG, way back when, Root was made an admin for it. He applied the same view of the Primer to the game as he had with CS:S. This in turned caused BF2 beta to be played very conservitively, as people would wait for the CO to give them their objectives, and it led to games being decided by Time rather than tickets. Not to say there were not intense engagements, but rather those engagements would be constantly fought over an objective.

                    Anyhow I digress, the point is, with Root as a GO and Admin, I have seen what the strictest application of the Primer to a BF series can produce. It was not a milsim, but at the same time, it was not an all out action game either. It was both, depending on timing and the right CO. I think that is something that is truly missing from BF3 now. Even with @sl on, most people do not use it, it seems. And this makes the game crumble into an Action based game. If only 2 out of 8 squads are cordinating, the squads not cordinating all seem to respond to Flags or enemy engagements at the same time. When that happens, it's easy to get behind and around the main reaction force. Which then causes this weird merry-go-round of who owns flags. The other night was a perfect example, we were holding 1 flag, but no sooner did our squad leave and start capping another flag, the one we held dropped. If there had been better squad to squad communication, we could have known what the other squads were doing and been able to better decide if leaving what we were holding was the right course of action. And I have seen, atleast with those in my squads, we are able to win the fight for a flag, holding it against most anything. But, we can't seem to rely on the other squads to win the war. And, I think I know why. By defending, we are removing 1 squad from the merry-go-round. This gives the enemy a 1 squad advantage, if they are not defending their flags, which most don't. There should be no way for me, on Metro, to run from B to C without tripping over multiple squads, but I did it. There was no one covering the stairs that come up on the side of B. Or, if they were covering it, my timing was such that I ran half way to their UCB, without running into a single soul. The reason I went so far back was I needed to hide for my SL to spawn on me, before I started capping C. This map should be the hardest map to flank on. And yet, I see many times on other maps, these same sort of flanks working.

                    Most everyone, it seems, is so eager to be in the fight, and to kill, that sitting at a back flag is excruciating. TG has never been about the # of kills or even the win, it's about completing your objectives thru teamwork, communication and tactics. There are times when I get decimated, yet I will look at it as a personal win if my squad was able to complete the objectives I tasked them with.

                    This community was founded on the idea of Milsim, and has evolved over time. Sc1ence is correct that that phrase in #3 of the primer is the hardest one for everyone to come to a consensus on. I tend to lean more Milsim, because that is how the Primer was drilled into me by the Admins at the time I was introduced to it. Does that mean if a game design has short comings, we change what the primer means so that we can tailor it to the game? No, we should adapt the game play so that it is inline with the Primer. Players have the ultimate control of how any game is played. I should be able to play any FPS and still be able to apply the primer playstyle to it. The simple reason is, they all function the same. I put the center pixel on someone and left click to shoot them. Having extra things like revives and repairs are just bells and whistles over the same basic game play. CS:S is the same as BF3 in FPS mechanics, you point(aim) and click(fire). Yes, the developers changed how this or that gun acts, or how deadly they are, or that you don't have to stay dead for the rest of the round if you die(revive), but that has no bearing on the basic principle of how to play a FPS. The Primer, should also be as universal as this. The server rules should only be setup to help focus the players on what an acceptable playstyle is that agrees with the Primer, nothing more, nothing less.
                    sigpic




                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                      Xen, I totally see the merry-go-round tactics squads implement. As an SL, I even admit guilt to it. But this action me has very little to do with the primer than the tools provided to us. But to me (perhaps incorrectly), people can still play well within the primer but stilll have the result you described.

                      Over the last few days I've enjoyed being SL less and less. For one, I simply have no clue what other squads are doing outside of pure speculation. Defending a flag is an easy call when you're winning or have the bleed advantage. When you're on the losing side, however, the decision - for me at least - isn't as clear cut. If most squads aren't attacking, someone has to do something to try and gain the advantage. Likewise, if our team is losing and other squads aren't successfully turning the tide of the battle in our favor, I feel compelled to add to the offensive. Unfortunately, often times the need to try and win a flag results in losing a back flag. While I'm fine defending a flag, only my decision to be aggressive is in question. However, only the latter comes into play when I feel our team is on a losing trajectory.

                      The cause of this is like you said is intersquad communication. I simply don't know what other squads are doing outside of observing their movements on the minimap. Perhaps it's my inexperience with the primer, but I don't see any strong connections between the primer and my decisions listed above as SL. For me, this has nothing to do with a desire to always be in a fight, only the desire to know I did what I could within the primer to help our team.

                      I get the feeling that there are those within TG that would disagree with my decisions and would argue that it doesn't fit the primer, and I'm open to listen and discuss as to why they feel this way.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                        Originally posted by Beatnik View Post
                        Where does driving a tank through the lagoon in a TG scrim fit with the primer as described above?
                        Originally posted by DocGuo View Post
                        The lagoon is shallow enough to drive a tank through it.
                        Theoretically, a tank should be water-tight if it's submerged at the right level.
                        Originally posted by Specterr View Post
                        I believe under the heading describing the acceptable use of Shark Tanks.




                        I would like an apology. :row__577:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                          Originally posted by Pvt Brokeback View Post
                          Xen, I totally see the merry-go-round tactics squads implement. As an SL, I even admit guilt to it. But this action me has very little to do with the primer than the tools provided to us. But to me (perhaps incorrectly), people can still play well within the primer but stilll have the result you described.

                          Over the last few days I've enjoyed being SL less and less. For one, I simply have no clue what other squads are doing outside of pure speculation. Defending a flag is an easy call when you're winning or have the bleed advantage. When you're on the losing side, however, the decision - for me at least - isn't as clear cut. If most squads aren't attacking, someone has to do something to try and gain the advantage. Likewise, if our team is losing and other squads aren't successfully turning the tide of the battle in our favor, I feel compelled to add to the offensive. Unfortunately, often times the need to try and win a flag results in losing a back flag. While I'm fine defending a flag, only my decision to be aggressive is in question. However, only the latter comes into play when I feel our team is on a losing trajectory.

                          The cause of this is like you said is intersquad communication. I simply don't know what other squads are doing outside of observing their movements on the minimap. Perhaps it's my inexperience with the primer, but I don't see any strong connections between the primer and my decisions listed above as SL. For me, this has nothing to do with a desire to always be in a fight, only the desire to know I did what I could within the primer to help our team.

                          I get the feeling that there are those within TG that would disagree with my decisions and would argue that it doesn't fit the primer, and I'm open to listen and discuss as to why they feel this way.
                          Brokeback, I was not saying that the merry-go-round gameplay is against the Primer, I was making a general observation about tactics. We have 8 squads, and with the expection of a few Conquest Assault maps, we have generally 5 flags to deal with. With a squad dedicated to defending each flag, that would leave 3 squads to cap flags. Now, when you are down flags, those designated to defend a flag, would help cap it with the 3 other squads. Also, I think the designated defenders should make the call on how to cap their flag, but this again goes back to inter squad communication, and the lacking there of.

                          I tend to error on the side of Defense, when we are bleeding. Only because it seems like some squads go into panic mode grinding, themselves and the tickets down, pushing on a entrenched position. Or I tend to float between two or three close objectives, or what i personally call my squads Zone of Control. Unless we get completely swamped out of our zone will I rarely step out of it.
                          sigpic




                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                            Submersion kits for tanks seem to take a while to equip and de equip as well as making the vehicle combat ineffective. The vehicles that are amphibious via flotation in BF3 are accordingly affected by a reduced speed and maneuverability.
                            |TG-12th| Namebot

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: GO thoughts on the Primer, Realism, and BF3

                              Originally posted by Namebot View Post
                              Submersion kits for tanks seem to take a while to equip and de equip as well as making the vehicle combat ineffective. The vehicles that are amphibious via flotation in BF3 are accordingly affected by a reduced speed and maneuverability.
                              Okay look, I'm not going to get drug into this "milsim" vs. "computer game" vs. "real life" quagmire. Amphibious kits for tanks do exist and (in the case of the T-90) is actually standard on most models. The depth of the lagoon in Wake Island is barely past the treads and modern technology for tanks would allow them to traverse it. If you would like to get into an argument about how the equip/de equip time would be too long to make it a feasible use in an actual combat engagement or how it would decrease the combat effectiveness of the vehicle then please do so...but frankly, I will not participate. I have shown that it is possible in real life and that is good enough for me. If you'd like to argue mechanics of how that plays into the primer, realism, or milsim environment you'd like to see TG cater too then I think there are other areas you should tackle first. Namely, the ability of people to magically pop out of thin air next to their squadmates, vehicles to magically appear at bases, reviving people from lethal wounds with a defibrillator, where an engineer carries nine RPGs, or how someone can pull near infinite ammo out of a small box. When you finish squaring all those issues (which are FAR more unrealistic than a tank up to its treads and still functioning) let me know.

                              I personally have no problem with any of the above...because I keep it in the perspective of being a computer game I play for fun. I play by TG rules because it makes it more fun (no bunnyhopping, no spawn camping, no suicide tactics, etc.). However, I do not read the primer as requiring every game under the TG umbrella to become a milsim that parallels real life. TG supports specific titles (ArmaA, PR) for that. I am just tired of seeing so many threads get derailed to the same milsim argument. This thread started as Fallen as our new BF3 GO giving the community his interpretation of the TG Primer and how he intended to apply it to BF3.

                              Originally posted by Fallen
                              However, even if BF3 isn’t MilSim or realism focused, our niche is still mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives. And we're not going to let BF3's inherent lack of realism be an excuse for "anything goes".
                              So basically (and correct me if I'm wrong Fallen) BF3 isn't a milsim nor will it become "anything goes". We just need to keep playing like the mature, teamwork oriented, objective focused players we are supposed to be. We have already had pages and pages and pages of discussion on this exact issue but some people keep bringing it back up every chance they get. It would appear that Fallen started this thread to address the issue and hopefully put it to rest (refer to above quote). Instead you've just taken this as an opportunity to continue to pummel our poor deceased equine friend.

                              Can we please just agree to disagree and stop bringing this up?


                              GL HF :row__577:

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X