The Carrier

[Brutus]

Re: The Carrier

:shakehead

Before you open your mouth put your brain in gear and learn to read.

Also suggest that you look in the topic for the person who is called BF2 Bonsai you are right if the server says nothing about attacking uncap flags then it fair but when it is stated and pr*cks carry on then it brakes BF2 BFROE.

d) Making attacks on enemy main bases (flags that cannot be captured), including artillery strikes, vehicle drops to block runways, bombing runs with aircraft or sustained infantry attacks. (Note that specific attacks targeting the enemy commander’s asset buildings are always allowed, even if they are within the enemy main base.)

Suggestion take a look

http://www.bfroe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171

and if you need to have someone to read to you may I suggest you mother or father.

I think you need to read it again.

Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behaviour or styles as long as these are clearly stated before a player starts playing on a server. These rules typically introduce minor restrictions on how a certain aspect of the game can be used.

Examples of such rules that are acceptable are:

(a) Players may not use explicit, offensive or racist language in-game.

(b) Players may not impersonate clan members or other server administrators.

(c) Players may not deliberately performing actions that hinder their own team (such as last-minute team-swapping to increase scores or statistics, excessive team-killing, destroying friendly vehicles, attacking team-mates,

deliberately placing themselves in a situation so they cause another player to team-kill them, using a vehicle while being the Commander that prevents them from performing any Commander functions (jet, etc.) or placing vehicles to block their own runways.

(d) Making attacks on enemy main bases (flags that cannot be captured), including artillery strikes, vehicle drops to block runways, bombing runs with aircraft or sustained infantry attacks. (Note that specific attacks targeting the enemy commander’s asset buildings are always allowed, even if they are within the enemy main base.)

Read the bold. Server admins MAY enact these rules, it does not state that they are hard and fast rules.

[simon1973]

Re: The Carrier

I think you need to read it again.



Read the bold. Server admins MAY enact these rules, it does not state that they are hard and fast rules.

What did I say you noob by the way noob what is a "arguments" I think you mean argument
Also suggest that you look at the link and the post by BF2 Bonsai

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showt...t=91428&page=2

I agree with you if the server says nothing about attacking uncap flags then it fair and may not breach the rules. But still when you are getting base rape by some jet to gain the high score and stopping the other side from gaining a flag and also stopping your fellow team mates from scoring it becomes very crap game for all. Also since when have you ever seen artillery dropping on a carrier. This is what makes BF2 rubbish.

[Brutus]

Re: The Carrier

What did I say you noob by the way noob what is a "arguments" I think you mean argument
Also suggest that you look at the link and the post by BF2 Bonsai

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showt...t=91428&page=2

I agree with you if the server says nothing about attacking uncap flags then it fair and may not breach the rules. But still when you are getting base rape by some jet to gain the high score and stopping the other side from gaining a flag and also stopping your fellow team mates from scoring it becomes very crap game for all. Also since when have you ever seen artillery dropping on a carrier. This is what makes BF2 rubbish.

Ummm... ok. You now agree that it is not against the BFROE, even though you said this:

Shame it is agaist the BFROE rules suggest you read them before you carry out this.

Making attacks on enemy main bases (flags that cannot be captured),

As for adding an accidental 's' to the end of a word, sorry, but was it that hard to understand?

You made a mistake and don't understand the BFROE, and in a typical childish fashion you are trying to hide that mistake by going back on what you said, and resorting to the typical 'you made a spelling error and are a noob' arguments.

By the way, 'arguments' is also correct, since one could assume that you would use the BFROE in future disagreements.

[Venomous]

Re: The Carrier

I hate all base rapers. I dont mind the infantry on the carrier. But arty on the carrier is just stupid and should not be allowed

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: The Carrier

sniping on the carrier is fine...arting the carrier..well its a waste, but it shouldnt be not allowed

[disfigured]

Re: The Carrier

The point I am trying to make (and others), isn't that most of these things are not allowed by the ROE.

They are allowed, and that's were the flaw lies.

If administered rules are a needed feature, how come they fail to work on a regular basis, time and time again? As is evident by the miriad of posts here and in other forums claiming either unfair inforcement of them, or some one breaking them.

The enitre section pertaining to this matter in the ROE simply negates most of what the game was designed to do in it's entirety.

It creates entirely different atmospheres and game conditions from one server to the next, thus negating any accuracy of the points/rank system. That completely throws off the autobalancing feature. Which is an actual game element.

It creates animosities and fractures the entire community into small segments who base their gaming philosphy on minute details "sniping the carrier is ok , but arty is not" as an example. Every body can have a vaild opinion on how they think the game should be changed. But when those changes can become poorly inforced rules at the drop of a hat, or with the simple addition of some server message, the problems begin.

It's completely backwards. Servers with administered rules should have been unranked. Ranked servers should have had a strict map rotation and other rigid settings. You could make two profiles, one for ranked, and one for unranked and enjoy both if you wished. It would not stop anyone from owning a server and running it the way they liked. It would just be unranked.

Personally I don't have ranked or unranked filtered so I have no idea what type of server I'm playing on. I don't check before I play. The rank/point system is so flawed it means nothing to me.

EA/DICE dropped the ball when they modified the ROE with these rules. Maybe they assumed it would only be few servers that used this "leeway". Of course we know now that it's morphed into a community that can't agree on anything other then:

"If you don't like it, leave"

That's not a real good way to play any type of game. There simply has to be some type of standard everyone can rely on. Not that this is a major league sport, but principles of play are still very similar. Rules are rules only if they are consistant through out the commmunity. They cease to become rules if they are changing from one server to the next. They become the wishes of the server owners vision of the game. That would be fine if there was a way to accurately and fairly inforce them, even then the dissimilar servers still do a disservice to the game itself. Even if everyone played by every rule and there were never a single dissagreement of transgression of a server rule, it still creates a flawed point/rank system, and a fractured society. But that's not the case is it?

I can guarantee you right now, I could can go on a server, who's rules no matter how detailed or well written and do something that would cause confusions and argument even amongst those running the server. I might have to do it on purpose, but that doesn't mean it can't happen in the normal course of play with the an average population of players attending that server.

The perception of lawlessness, and unfair play is only there because of the rules created by adminstrators. It's by those rules that people define their perception of how the game should be played. What happens now is a player goes from one server to the next and makes a judgement on those running those servers based on an inconsistant game play expereince.

"Then what about Tking and team vehicle destruction?"

Well let's have some common sense people. If you play baseball and some one throws all the balls and bats in the nearest pond, that is not the same as every ball feild having a differnent out of bounds lay out. While MLB does have different size ballfeilds, they are trying fix that, not promote it, and essentially that's what the ROE does, it promotes complete diveristiy and inconstistancy. Imagine if the 1st and 3rd base lines were not all 90 degrees from the plate, and were all different formations, or the base paths were differnent distances from each other. When you make UCB rules your essentially changing the playing feild.

I've been playing games for a long time, since you could play them online and before. I've never seen a more fractured community with more opinions in my life. Those opinions only hold weight because of the varied servers that people play on and run. They implement rules to make their opinions actual game play, albeit poorly and inconsistantly for the most part. I don't blame them for these actions, it's only natural to try and provide a good gaming expereince. It's the varied ammount of opinions that's the problem.

It may seem fine that you play were you like and people who play there have no problems, but on the whole I believe it's bad for the community and the game's potential.

[trist]

Re: The Carrier

wow talk about opening a can of worms...... why is artting a carrier "a waste"?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: The Carrier

wow talk about opening a can of worms...... why is artting a carrier "a waste"?

If you want your team to win, arty ahead. Itll also lower enemy tickets faster and your team doesnt score as fast.

If you want to score more points, let your guys do the killing. They will like extra score, and Im sure you wouldnt mind either.

[Lt.Kris]

Re: The Carrier

dont you just love when your on the ship sniping, killing, and blowing things up and the Cobra spawns and kills everyone?

[barr5790]

Re: The Carrier

So if you live long enough to get there its ok to attack the carrier? or is tyhat dependant on the server?

assulting the carrier i say is ok on any server just dont spawn kill wait 4 them to b in open and DONT attack in a j10 dropping bombs comstantly r in an attack chopper, at least the US have a chance against a lone sniper lol

[DesertFalcon]

Re: The Carrier

im fine with every thing accept comander artilery. whosever idea to implent artiley into bf2 was retarted it was more fun in 1942 where you at leaswt had to aim your vehicle.

[Roger Smith]

Re: The Carrier

im fine with every thing accept comander artilery. whosever idea to implent artiley into bf2 was retarted it was more fun in 1942 where you at leaswt had to aim your vehicle.

arty was very well done in bfviet.

No, The ROE are there to act as a guideline, if a clan is PAYING for their own server they can do WHATEVER they wish with it.

theres IS and theres SHOULD BE, i am a proponent of should be.