Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can vs. Should.

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

  • Can vs. Should.

    Full Disclaimer: I am not an admin. I do not speak with any authority whatsoever for anyone, this is all my own opinion.

    BC2 is a new frontier for TG, and like frontiers throughout history there will be a wild and wolly period of shifting norms and rules. Rush mode is my main concern. We've all played BF conquest, and the basic gist of the Conquest rules for BF2, POE2, and 2142 will probably fit nicely in the new game. Rush is new though, and different, and I don't think we'll have rules on day 1 for it. So I wanted to offer my own personal take on Rush and how we can play it the TG way. I won't be addressing bedrock TG principles like no suicide tactics for example, just about the specific pitfalls of Rush. This is the code I am setting for myself until we get hard rules from the admin team.


    Attack.

    The main issue we saw in the beta on the Attack was people loading in quickly and jihad jeeping objectives. This will obviously not be a problem on a TG server, both due to the countdown timer and our prohibition against suicide tactics. This was really the only issue with the Attack that springs to mind, but if someone else has one they can think of, I'd be glad to hear it.

    Defense.

    Alright we all know that Conquest uncaps and uncap vehicle stealing are not allowed on TG. We all know that spawnkilling as a goal in itself is not allowed. There are no assets to blow up in BC2. The NPC commander for defense clearly orders you to fall back. These two TG rules and two game elements to me suggest that we should not be lingering on the last stage, but should be falling back onto the next two crates as fast as we can. Covering a retreat is one thing, lingering to pick off spawning enemies is another. Of particular concern to me is vehicles. If someone hops out of the T90 inside the defender's base it is legitimate to take it, IMO. On the other hand, lingering after objectives have fallen in order to steal or kill enemy armor as it spawns is, to me, a clear violation of the spirit we try to create here. The fact that you cannot spawn on squadmates inside the enemy base indicates to me that DICE doesn't like this either. Rush maps will be balanced with the assumption that a side is using the vehicles DICE designed it to have. We saw a couple times how ugly a US team could make it for the Russians with an Apache, a T90, and a Bradley.

    So that's my take: Rush Defense entails defending your crates as hard as possible, but when/if they are lost you should fall back to the next defensive position as fast as you possibly can. This is not to say you should not still be fighting during the transition period, but you should be fighting your way to the next defense point, not remaining in the area. If you have to shoot your way out, that is fine, but you need to be moving out, not making circles in the attacker's new base.

    It is bad enough when some moron hops out of the armor and gives it to the other team. We will lose enough potential new TGers to those kind of crappy rounds without creating them with malice aforethought. We should in the time before explicit rules are laid down err on the side of creating a fun environment and not seek to chisel every advantage we can out of the game during the first few weeks of its existence. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

    Again, I'm not trying to preach or boss anyone around. This is my take, and it is how I will be playing the game on Tuesday. It would be nice if we could govern ourselves to the greatest degree possible and leave the admins to focus on things like hackers and griefers. Good luck.....and good hunting.


  • #2
    Re: Can vs. Should.

    By your reasoning, the defenders ought to:
    1. Freely give up territory.
    2. Expose their backs while retreating.
    3. Freely allow the enemy a chance to regroup and reorganize.
    4. Be aware that their armor can be stolen, but they cannot reply in kind and steal enemy armor.

    You should be aware that this places the defenders at an unfair disadvantage.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Can vs. Should.

      Britt, while I agree with your take on the Rush mode vs. TG problems, I think your suggestions are too many to be practical to implement. Zhohars points are exactly what rush mode is about, you need to stop the attackers with any means necessary.
      My thoughts on rush mode is that we shouldnīt have it on the TG servers, or, at least confine it to only one of the servers.
      sigpic


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Can vs. Should.

        On the other hand, I find that the thing where they blow up their own crates fascinating because it was a valid tactic. It is one specific base that they tend to blow up their own crate, and the time to blow up to make sure that the enemies are gone. They take the tanks and drive them to the base, reinforcing their own forces, and keeping the stolen tanks alive with repairs. I think that perfectly what Battlefield really is because that is using the elements and then it is up to the different factions to make sure they do not steal the vehicles. That is definitely a Battlefield moment itself, but we do need to make it harder so that it does not happen all the time.
        This is a quote from the fragcast interview with DICE http://www.fragcast.org/?p=608&page=2

        The fact that you can't spawn on a team-mate inside the attackers spawn doesn't mean you can't be in their spawn point it just means you can't spawn on people inside the spawn point.
        We must remember that this is a new game with a new game-mode, this isn't like the old conquest on bf2, bf2142 and some of the old rules may not work.
        Nubhar

        - In the process, I have discovered that I can make iron bolts with my butt****.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Can vs. Should.

          Originally posted by Zhohar View Post
          You should be aware that this places the defenders at an unfair disadvantage.
          Unfair? I disagree with that. It may put them at less of an advantage than is possible, but that's not new to TG players. Every game we play here, we play with restraint - with a self-imposed 'disadvantage'....


          Originally posted by general_alvin View Post
          you need to stop the attackers with any means necessary.
          Wrong! :D (not on our servers anyway)


          Originally posted by Abel View Post
          This isn't like the old conquest on bf2, bf2142 and some of the old rules may not work.
          True, but the spirit of those rules still works.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Can vs. Should.

            Originally posted by WhiskeySix View Post
            Wrong! :D (not on our servers anyway)
            Not wrong, more like that was my point ;), itīs going to be difficult to play rush mode on a TG server, which this thread implies.
            sigpic


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Can vs. Should.

              Originally posted by general_alvin View Post
              Not wrong, more like that was my point ;), itīs going to be difficult to play rush mode on a TG server, which this thread implies.
              heh, touché :D

              You think so? Why?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Can vs. Should.

                Well, Iīd love to be proven wrong on this. But as was discussed in this thread
                http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...-just-see.html
                the suicide tactics are very tempting for the attackers since itīs very difficult to break through a good TG defense. I know itīs against the rules but if there is a lot of non-TG players all it takes is one suicide C4 attack and the round is ruined for the defenders. The player will be kicked but the damage is done and in rush mode only a few suicide attacks can win the round for the attackers. In conquest mode suicide attacks are not that effective and wonīt ruin a whole round.
                sigpic


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Can vs. Should.

                  I agree with Britt, the maps are balanced assuming that the attackers are using all of their resources to advance. Without them it just becomes an un-fun meat grinder until the round ends. I play the game to win, but I want everyone to enjoy themselves. I have much more fun losing a hard fought round by a few tickets than winning by a landslide while monopolizing all of the armor.

                  The problem that I saw over and over is that the attackers will be desperately trying to blow the second station, and if the T-90 is not up when it falls, it re-spawns as soon as the station goes down. So you have the T-90 spawning right into the midst of the defenders, and the attackers have no chance of grabbing it. If the attackers are able to sneak in and steal the armor after the defenders have moved up and started attacking the next crates, I almost feel like the defenders deserve to lose the armor. But it was very frustrating to see the defenders ride off in a T-90 that spawned while we were still fighting to secure the area.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Can vs. Should.

                    Originally posted by WhiskeySix View Post
                    heh, touché :D

                    You think so? Why?
                    I do like rush mode. I would love to play it on TG servers. The problems I see with this though are you are going to have to relax some rules on rush mode compared to conquest. If we have public players coming into that, they will associate the rules as the same.

                    What might be OK on rush may not be OK on conquest. It will be confusing to new players and may result in some unnecessary kicks or bans. I would say, just like titan, have a special night for rush mode or have the occasional admin throw in a rush map out of order for a round or two.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Can vs. Should.

                      Originally posted by Amplitudo View Post
                      I agree with Britt, the maps are balanced assuming that the attackers are using all of their resources to advance. Without them it just becomes an un-fun meat grinder until the round ends. I play the game to win, but I want everyone to enjoy themselves. I have much more fun losing a hard fought round by a few tickets than winning by a landslide while monopolizing all of the armor.

                      The problem that I saw over and over is that the attackers will be desperately trying to blow the second station, and if the T-90 is not up when it falls, it re-spawns as soon as the station goes down. So you have the T-90 spawning right into the midst of the defenders, and the attackers have no chance of grabbing it. If the attackers are able to sneak in and steal the armor after the defenders have moved up and started attacking the next crates, I almost feel like the defenders deserve to lose the armor. But it was very frustrating to see the defenders ride off in a T-90 that spawned while we were still fighting to secure the area.
                      Frustrating, yes. That's the nature of rush mode though. If I'm defending and my MCOM stations blow up and a T-90 spawns right next to me, you're darn straight I'm jumping in it. I'm going to drive it straight up to my base, install some spinners, chain link steering wheel and shag carpet. Then I'm going to park it where I'm watching over an MCOM station and listen to Lowrider played by WAR because they play Lowrider with an electric guitar. The electric guitar matters because I'm not in an actual lowrider, I'm in a tank.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Can vs. Should.

                        I concede the point. If your intent is to pimp out the T-90 by all means take it. In fact I have some C4 packs that would look nice symmetrically arranged on the sides.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Can vs. Should.

                          Originally posted by Amplitudo View Post
                          I concede the point. If your intent is to pimp out the T-90 by all means take it. In fact I have some C4 packs that would look nice symmetrically arranged on the sides.
                          Just don't scratch the rims.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Can vs. Should.

                            Originally posted by Tllyx View Post
                            Frustrating, yes. That's the nature of rush mode though. If I'm defending and my MCOM stations blow up and a T-90 spawns right next to me, you're darn straight I'm jumping in it. I'm going to drive it straight up to my base, install some spinners, chain link steering wheel and shag carpet. Then I'm going to park it where I'm watching over an MCOM station and listen to Lowrider played by WAR because they play Lowrider with an electric guitar. The electric guitar matters because I'm not in an actual lowrider, I'm in a tank.
                            This quite possible has to be one of the best posts in here!

                            Originally posted by Tllyx View Post
                            I do like rush mode. I would love to play it on TG servers. The problems I see with this though are you are going to have to relax some rules on rush mode compared to conquest. If we have public players coming into that, they will associate the rules as the same.

                            What might be OK on rush may not be OK on conquest. It will be confusing to new players and may result in some unnecessary kicks or bans. I would say, just like titan, have a special night for rush mode or have the occasional admin throw in a rush map out of order for a round or two.
                            What specifically do you think will need to be relaxed compared to conquest?


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Can vs. Should.

                              Originally posted by oniell121 View Post
                              What specifically do you think will need to be relaxed compared to conquest?
                              I'd also be interested in this, as BC2 currently doesn't have any server rules ;)

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X