No announcement yet.

Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

    Bad Company 2 has been out for well over a month now and our servers have had a lot of activity. This title has brought together players from all aspects of Tactical Gamer, probably more than any other title we've hosted. We have also been seeing some new faces around our servers / forums from players who are new to our community. Each of these players has a different preference in the type of game they enjoy and inevitably all have our opinions on how this game should be played at Tactical Gamer.

    This post will hopefully shed some light on playing BC2 the Tactical Gamer way.

    Let me first say that the admin team has done a tremendous job with the launch of this title by setting clear expectations early and a simple manageable rule-set. The admin team has been very transparent with the community and always has an open ear. The lack of quality admin tools and a game that lacks critical features (e.g. VoIP) has not stopped them from building a great BC2 community at TG.

    The community has also performed well under these same conditions, and while there may be posts in frustration about the game itself, we have all conducted ourselves maturely and respectfully.

    There are a few topics that have come up repeatedly over the past month and a half and I wanted to help clarify some of the points that have been raised. Most of these topics tie back to what Tactical Gamer is, the Primer, why we play here and how we conduct ourselves.

    Tactical Gamer supports any title that can offer teamwork, communication, and objective-based play. Whether a game is more of a simulation or more action oriented does not matter as long as we have a community that is mature, respectful and satisfies the aforementioned points. We strive to offer a game play experience that is leaps and bounds above the standard public server. The rules created for a game are created to establish the baseline tolerated style of play. This allows for players new to Tactical Gamer to get their feet wet while allowing the more veteran TGers to educate them on the higher standard of game play we strive for.

    One of the easier concepts for new players to understand is teamwork. This rarely is an issue for most players so I won't get into this topic in-depth. The basic point is that we work with our squad towards the team objectives.

    A critical piece to teamwork, however, is communication. We have natural leaders in this community who readily step up and lead their fellow players. We also have great followers who fill their role since we can't all be leaders at once. Some players are very vocal while others tend to only speak when necessary. All have their place.

    Unfortunately Bad Company 2 is presently defective in the VoIP department so we're having to rely on teamspeak as our primary communication mechanism. Since communication is a key piece to Tactical Gamer it is expected that players are on teamspeak communicating with their squad and / or their team. If we refer back to our rule-set we'll notice that audio is required. The admin team has been lenient on this due to the VoIP issue but that shouldn't excuse anyone from not joining up on teamspeak.

    Organization on teamspeak can be difficult at times due to all the chatter in the team channel. When a game is currently in progress, it is expected that any and all chatter in the team channels be related (i.e. organization, contact reports) to the game at hand.

    Objective-based Play
    Playing the objective can often times be confusing especially when killing the other team can win the game. We take a different approach in that regard. For BC2 we have two common team game modes (conquest & rush).

    On conquest the objective is to capture and defend enough flags to cause the other team bleed. This doesn't necessarily mean capturing every flag nor does it mean simply to run out and kill the other team. There is a definite assault and defend objective.

    On the rush game mode, the objective is for the assaulting team to destroy the enemy's MCOMs while the defending team is to keep the enemy away from them.

    The player should be thinking at all times whether their current actions are directly supporting these objectives or whether they are out simply for the kill.

    Main Bases (UCBs)
    The topic of play in and surrounding a UCB often comes up at Tactical Gamer. A UCB is a game mechanism for providing reinforcements (i.e. spawn area to reinforce the battlefield). We strive for the battle to take place on the battlefield and not the supply line provided by the UCB. This means we expect players to not engage the opponents at the UCB.

    The UCB however is also not meant to be a safe haven. Players should not expect to never be shot in the UCB. Firing from or retreating to the UCB is typically grounds to get fired upon.

    Unfortunately many of the BC2 maps are poorly designed in that they place the UCB close the objectives (e.g. flags, etc.) or have weapon emplacements (e.g. AA, Fixed anti-armor) within their boundaries. This makes it difficult to create hard and fast rules about the UCB.

    There seems to be an awful lot of action taking place at the UCBs presently. While it currently is not against the rules to fire into the UCB, we are seeing some folks push the limits of the rules by actively engaging any enemy they see at the UCB and dropping mortar strikes on the UCB. For those that are engaged in this type of game play, while you are not technically breaking the rules, you are breaking the spirit of the rule and the spirit of objective based play, and I would raise the question as to why you play at Tactical Gamer.

    Proper Weapon / Vehicle Use
    Another topic that is often brought up is the proper use of weapons / vehicles. Playing at Tactical Gamer means we strive to properly use the weapons within reason. The Carl Gustav's (CG) are a great example to speak to. This weapon is meant for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and bunker-busters. The CG is an effective and powerful weapon and when you compare it to other weapons in non-HC mode where damage is limited, the CG is often a better choice for some.

    Unfortunately some take this a bit too far by using this in close quarter combat. We understand that a player may have the weapon ready and get surprised by an enemy and fire in close quarters, but this should be the exception and not the rule. I've seen far too many times where a player will wait within a room and defend that room with the CG. That is not the proper use of this weapon. For those that are engaged in this type of game play, while you are not technically breaking the rules, you are breaking the spirit of the Primer, and I would raise the question as to why you play at Tactical Gamer.

    The helicopter is a vehicle I would also like to briefly touch upon. Simply put, the helicopter is either a transport or assault type vehicle. Pilots are meant to fly the vehicle and only bail when the vehicle has sustained too much damage that returning to repair is out of the question. Helos should not be used for the quick transport of the pilot, nor should they be used for ramming into objectives.

    Hardcore vs. Standard (non-HC) debate
    We all have our preference on the mode we enjoy playing and both have their place at Tactical Gamer. It is often brought up that one mode or the other is "more TG". Both are equally the style of Tactical Gamer because in both we can offer teamwork, communication, and objective-based play. Strategies and tactics can be utilized in both.

    Wrapping it up
    It's been mentioned in several threads though probably not in the initial post... we have server rules to set the tolerance (introduction) level of game-play, however we expect a lot more. Tactical Gamer players should be striving for a standard much higher than just the rule-set. This is what playing BC2 the Tactical Gamer way is all about.

    We have a great community here and I whole heartily feel that we can continue to be great and still get better at the same time.
    Last edited by asch; 04-19-2010, 10:53 PM.
    |TG-12th| asch

  • #2
    Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

    Absolutely epic post asch! Everyone needs to read this in light of a lot of the threads we've seen around here lately.


    • #3
      Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

      Some powerful stuff.

      <04:11:24> *** You are now talking in channel: "TFP - Task Force Proteus"
      <04:16:25> "|TG-XV| Tralic": this channel is so gay
      DICE needs to make a comical boxing glove attached to a spring punch the player in the face 40% of the time they get into a helicopter or jet.


      • #4
        Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

        I just wish Dice would nerf the damn weapon already. I don't see Asch's post calming the complaints too much.

        Complaint: "That shot was too close to be fair!"

        Response: "But I didn't take any damage from the blast!"
        Response: "But I was shooting downstairs into another room!"
        Response: "But I was shooting from one room to another room!"
        Response: "But I was shooting into the room through a window from the outside!"
        Response: "But I was shooting-"



        • #5
          Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

          The player should be thinking at all times whether their current actions are directly supporting these objectives or whether they are out simply for the kill.
          I've had this feeling since 2142, and the rule discussions we've had there. I phrased it something like this: is there any one thing I can be doing right now that would be more helpful to my team's objective? If the answer is yes ... 90% of those grey areas between the Primer and the Rules fade away.


          • #6
            Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

            And I think that was one of the points asch was trying to make. We have to be mindful enough of ourselves to be able to strive for objective-based play without toeing the line between what is technically acceptable and what shouldnt be legal. It's a tough line to follow. I've always held it as a strong point in my play that if something isnt exactly right, but isnt specifically outlawed either, I simply avoid it altogether. Doesnt matter if it would be beneficial to my own, my squad's or even my team's objectives. If it can be seen in a questionable nature, it aint happening under my steam.

            As I said in a conversation earlier, it's exactly as asch said about following the spirit of the primer. It's more than a set of black and white rules, its a functional philosophy that is more than just the sum of its individual points.


            • #7
              Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

              Originally posted by Gill View Post
              I don't see Asch's post calming the complaints too much.
              Probably not. It's very frustrating to die especially in certain circumstances. And those responses will only work for so long from the same player. The admin team does a great job and not only enforcing the rules, but keeping tabs on players that simply haven't "gotten it" yet. Whether it comes from the admin team or the player-base, education is key to helping these players step up their game.

              What some folks don't realize is that other players see how we play and first impressions are critical. Leading by example and educating new players will set the tone for a positive gaming experience.
              |TG-12th| asch


              • #8
                Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

                You should ask yourself, with every decision you make....
                Attached Files


                • #9
                  Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

                  Good post, asch, but I find many more things more objectionable than the CG in BC2. I find it objectionable to be killed at 5 feet by a 40mm grenade, even if it hasn't armed. I find it objectionable to be sniped across the map by an Uzi. I find it objectionable to be killed with 1 shot from a shotgun by someone who is so far away I can barely see them. Unfortunately, this is how BC2 plays, so I just bite my tongue and keep playing (at least whenever the 2142 server is empty). I find it obectionable that rockets don't explode after you die, even if you fired them before you got shot and heard the launcher fire.

                  As for the CG, it is certainly more effective than the 2142 rocket launcher (which also killed me at point blank range many times), but then it IS designed as an anti-personnel weapon and the 2142 rocket launcher was NOT. Trying to establish some kind of rule about when close is too close is just unenforceable in my opinion. Especially when it is already limited by the game itself - if you fire the CG too close to yourself, you will suicide. Bottom line: If it is the best weapon for a task or a choice between dying and shooting the CG (either it is what I had in hand, or I have run out of USAS-12 ammo - my pistol is a tracer), then I will fire the CG at whatever range I happen to be at.


                  • #10
                    Re: Playing Bad Company 2 the Tactical Gamer Way

                    I agree with Marcus. using the CG in close quarters may well be unrealistic, but so is having some twitchy punk dance around your SMG fire and run at you with a combat knife. Or the idea that an M9 pistol does more damage than an M16.

                    Establishing a set of rules to use some items realsitically in an unrealistic game is trouble.




                    TeamSpeak 3 Server




                    Twitter Feed