The Carrier

[Beerman]

Re: The Carrier

my position is that its part of the game and admins should not have the power to say otherwise.

You are like a god to me, 110% agree. This game is called battlefield for a reason, there is no safe zone. or field as it were

[[BF2]Bonsai]

Re: The Carrier

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

Have you actually read them?
Because the BFROE says that if it`s not stated before the game starts it is allowed.

------------

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

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.

(...)

(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.)

-------------

[Jarhead1093]

Re: The Carrier

I agree that there is no safe place in war, however, this is a game, we play to have fun. Too many people have lost sight of that fact. In war there are no rules, in games there are rules. Rules make the game fun for everyone, not just the spawn raping jerks. There are lots of rules in BF2. Learn to obey them and everyone has fun. If your a good player, you don't need to spawn rape to get kills/points. If your a bad player; play more, you will get better, I promise. Now lets all have fun!

[Jonesey1141]

Re: The Carrier

this problem cant be fixed with rules. the problem is unblanced air to ground warfare.

My thoughts exactly. I snipe and arty the carrier as an anti-aircraft tactic; if they can't get off of the ground they can't take advantage of the imbalance.

[Brutus]

Re: The Carrier

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),

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

People like this just makes getting off the carrier harder and are sad

A person said the following "my position is that its part of the game and admins should not have the power to say otherwise". Well done admins who stop this. Seen many admins who say stop attacking the carrier or be kicked. Such admins are playing the BFROE correctly and I praise them who do this. Like I said suggest you read the rules before posting your stupid question about base rape. Nothing worse when trying your hardest to get off the carrier and some pri*k snipes you or a jet wipes you all out. Just show how many little boys out in the world are keen to spoil the game play

I suggest that you read and understand the BFROE, before you start using it in your arguments.

Edit: Corrected a spelling mistake.

[Blades]

Re: The Carrier

we used to play = attack any base at any time
well - our pilots are so good = NO ONE ever got off the essex, and even if a lucky pilot did, he was soon killed

You do realize, that it takes absolutely no skill to base rape? Learn how to dodge missles from the essex and you are golden.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: The Carrier

ROE, SHMOE. It doesn't matter what that crap says. Like that other guy said, it doesn't take much to keep a team confined to the carrier. Then you have attack chopper pilots, jet jockeys, and the occasional APC making a run every 10-15 seconds. Well, choppers can camp for an extended period, as can APCs. Then out of 20 or so people on the team, 5 get all the points and actually have some semblance of fun. The other 35 in the server are just wasting time. This is why I leave a server as soon as Wake becomes the map. I know a lot of other people do the same.

My goal is for every spawn camper to see "The game will start when # people join." Have fun playing with yourself.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: The Carrier

You do realize, that it takes absolutely no skill to base rape? Learn how to dodge missles from the essex and you are golden.

Carrier = F35B

vs

MiG/J10

What happened to Sir tags, Blades?

[Doctor]

Re: The Carrier

the carrier should be moveable like in 1942

[T@rty]

Re: The Carrier

the carrier should be moveable like in 1942

And beached just like in most BF1942 games...... grrrr

As for no attacking uncaps, if its a clan server then the can do what they want and enforce any rules they want. They pay for it!

Some people seem to forget that one

[disfigured]

Re: The Carrier

Making a rule only releaves EA/DICE from making changes to the maps and other game elements that considered flawed by the majority of the community.

If Wake and Dalian were played with no administered rules by virtue of a new ROE for ranked servers that didn't allow administered rules about when and where you could attack something, you'd have 2 unplayable maps. Correct?

That would behove EA/DICE to fix the problem. Instead they let people make their own rules, and guess what?

The maps are still nearly unplayable in certain situations (as was described) and we're right back to the drawing board again.

Not only that, but the loosely written ROE also spurns a host of other rules that morph into anarchy at some servers. As is proven everyday in every server and BF2 forum with the complaints about the inforcement and vaguness of the those rules.

The third element in this evil chain of folly is that now with the varied ammount of rules and map rotations (24/7 servers ), the stats rank system means absolutely nothing. You've got Lt.'s running around who haven't even figured out how to use VOIP yet because all they've been doing is playing Karkand for year with a PKM.

It's also been my belief (since '42), that administered rules create an atmosphere were players don't realize their potential, and thus don't become the type of teammates that can fight off a "rape". Why bother orgainizing a defense of a UCB, we can just give up and claim it's flawed and make a rule. You never know what can be done if by the third time people die instantly they give up. I've died 7-8-9-10 times in a row to get one tank out of the way. It can be done and it's very rewarding if you don't immediately fold faster then superman on laundry day.

A spawn point wheter cappable or not, if not allowed to enter game play as a valid target all the time, alters the value of all the others spawns. Why fight for the closest spawn to the enemy's UCB, if only to have to sit their and watch an endless supply of manpower and vehicles take it back from you, and be able to do nothing about it? It makes no sense what so ever.

It's a lose, lose, lose and lose again situation, when ever human inforced rules are allowed to alter game play.

It may seem like a quick fix, and it's probably implemented well on some servers, but in the long run it only detracts from the games potential.

Ask yourselves this question:

Would you rather have administred rules, or have the game patched towards a better balanced game play?

Because if the answer is the latter (which I assume is the majority), every time you advocate administered rules, you delay and even prevent EA/DICE from solving any of problems. If they alter game play not to your opinions then it simply becomes not a game for you. But at least there's some consistancy through out the community.

Personally I believe there are only a few problems with the current system with a couple of maps , and only if the best pilots are flying. Even though the jets and choppers are powerful, if a team could get together as a whole it can be combated in most cases. The only problem is when your getting hammered by a chopper for example, and need more people spawning as AT, you'll have half a dozen still spawning as sniper because they they are going for some badge or something. Even with no aminstered rules, and even with some changes to the maps, the points/rank system is also flawed IMO. It puts far too much emphasis on individual acheivements.

I play on both types of servers, and try my best to play by the rules. Which useally isn't hard since anyone who's played this series long enough and plays to win (and that's a big if) knows that consistantly attacking the UCB is not a very good tactic to winning a round. It's part and parcial of a winning strategy but by no means a guarentee of a win. Therefore I'm not in there a lot throwing a monkey wrench into the enemy's UCB.

Can BF2 be improved by administered rules? In some very rare cases with extremely diligent and fair administration , yes. But I would really rather rely on patching and teammate involvement to defeat what is percieved as a imbalance or an unfair advantage due to map design.

Last thing I want is a server admin protecting me from something, or making it more difficult for another player to attack me. Vice Versa, I really don't want to have to watch my every move to make sure I'm not violating any code of ethics that was decided in some server/clan comity meeting.

This game has so much potential, and I see eliminating administered rules as a bitter pill to swallow, but one that in the long run will eventually make for a better game and community.

[Roger Smith]

Re: The Carrier

As for no attacking uncaps, if its a clan server then the can do what they want and enforce any rules they want. They pay for it!

the "they pay for it" argument doesnt mean a damn thing to me. i payed for this game, and i expect a fair gaming experience on ranked servers. the inhouse roe rules simply protect the admin to make any terrible rule they want. i propose the inhouse rules be removed from the roe and that they play unranked if they want ******** rules that alter how the game works.


its just like big oil and the us government, the server admins have direct control over ea policy makers. which would be fine if we didnt have a rank system and roe.

[T@rty]

Re: The Carrier

the "they pay for it" argument doesnt mean a damn thing to me. i payed for this game, and i expect a fair gaming experience on ranked servers.

Well then be thankful that you play a game where the developer/publisher (in this case EA) actually run servers. Most online game rely on clans (of some sort) to run servers not publishers. And the simple answer to your 'I don't give a damn' is don't play on clan server where there ROE are not to your liking

[Roger Smith]

Re: The Carrier

Well then be thankful that you play a game where the developer/publisher (in this case EA) actually run servers. Most online game rely on clans (of some sort) to run servers not publishers. And the simple answer to your 'I don't give a damn' is don't play on clan server where there ROE are not to your liking

you are missing the point. the inhouse section of the roe basically negates the point of even having an roe and unranked servers.

Making a rule only releaves EA/DICE from making changes to the maps and other game elements that considered flawed by the majority of the community.

amen, fix the game and remove the inhouse rules.

If Wake and Dalian were played with no administered rules by virtue of a new ROE for ranked servers that didn't allow administered rules about when and where you could attack something, you'd have 2 unplayable maps. Correct?

unplayable? no. takes way too much teamwork and effort for the average gamer, yes. if the gameplay was made faster and more fair from ground to air, then we wouldnt have those problems on those maps.

As is proven everyday in every server and BF2 forum with the complaints about the inforcement and vaguness of the those rules.

exactly, define a very simple rule, and dont go beyond that. for isntance uncapturable base rape is very vauge, but uncap spawn camping is a very specific scenario that applies to sitting there and waiting for them to spawn and shooting them.

The third element in this evil chain of folly is that now with the varied ammount of rules and map rotations (24/7 servers )

only reason i play 24 7 servers is because it takes in excess of 2 min 2 join a server. if the waiting for players to be ready command was manditory like the not enough players to start, and if they both were pickup games, then nobody could complain really, and us slow loaders would still get a fair game.

It's also been my belief (since '42), that administered rules create an atmosphere were players don't realize their potential, and thus don't become the type of teammates that can fight off a "rape". Why bother orgainizing a defense of a UCB, we can just give up and claim it's flawed and make a rule.

**** ya, dice needs to go one way on this, either remove the roe **** and fix the game or redesign the layout of uncaps:
-enemys cant enter uncaps without taking player/vehicle damage
-commander assets removed or moved away from uncaps
-uncap defences removed

this could also be a server option that could be filtered, that way everyones happy, they can have thier noob servers, and i dont have to sift through them

A spawn point wheter cappable or not, if not allowed to enter game play as a valid target all the time, alters the value of all the others spawns. Why fight for the closest spawn to the enemy's UCB, if only to have to sit their and watch an endless supply of manpower and vehicles take it back from you, and be able to do nothing about it? It makes no sense what so ever.

a freaking men!

The only problem is when your getting hammered by a chopper for example, and need more people spawning as AT, you'll have half a dozen still spawning as sniper because they they are going for some badge or something.

one factor in this, is the lack of information, check out my gui information thread, the link is in my sig.

Even with no aminstered rules, and even with some changes to the maps, the points/rank system is also flawed IMO. It puts far too much emphasis on individual acheivements.

exactly

consistantly attacking the UCB is not a very good tactic to winning a round. It's part and parcial of a winning strategy but by no means a guarentee of a win. Therefore I'm not in there a lot throwing a monkey wrench into the enemy's UCB.

exactly, and if the enemy had better aa defence, it would be even worse of an idea. you cant just base rape, you have to make sure nobody gets past your team aswell. its about combat support.

Can BF2 be improved by administered rules? In some very rare cases with extremely diligent and fair administration , yes. But I would really rather rely on patching and teammate involvement to defeat what is percieved as a imbalance or an unfair advantage due to map design.

yeap, check out this thread i did on the ea games (the maker of the roe) forums.

http://forum.eagames.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=27674

Last thing I want is a server admin protecting me from something, or making it more difficult for another player to attack me. Vice Versa, I really don't want to have to watch my every move to make sure I'm not violating any code of ethics that was decided in some server/clan comity meeting.

EXACTLY!

This game has so much potential, and I see eliminating administered rules as a bitter pill to swallow, but one that in the long run will eventually make for a better game and community.

like i said before, checkout this thread:

http://forum.eagames.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=27674

the only real sections of the roe that needs work are the inhouse rules, and exploits sections.

[T@rty]

Re: The Carrier

you are missing the point. the inhouse section of the roe basically negates the point of even having an roe and unranked servers.

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. That may mean that the server is unpopular but at the end of the day it is THEIR sever, to run as they see fit. And yes I've been booted of plenty of servers in the 20 years I've played online and never once moaned about it! You do not have a god given right to enforce your opinion on others who PAY for their server!

Bring back Telecom Gold with Shades!!!!!1111oneoneone