No Fighting at Uncap Rule

[Shepherd007]

Just to make this clear, I'm not referring to Spawn camping or Attacking the Uncap. I've seen a rule two or three times now that is either "No Fighting at the Uncap," "No Attacking over the Uncap," or something similar. Let me explain.

My first comment from someone on the server came as I was in the middle of a dogfight on Dalian Plant (me in an F-35, my opponent in a J-10). I got behind the J-10 and got two quick missiles off as he was flying down over the top of the mountains to rearm/repair his plane. He hadn't even passed the hangers yet when I downed him. He commented something about "not attacking over the uncap," and I responded with "???" because 1) he was flying and 2) he was on the outskirts of the base.

My ban (that's right, no kicks, just immediate bans) came from a helo dogfight. I was tailing a wounded helo back to his base on Sharqi when I TV'd him just as he reached the pad. Then I was banned.

Here are my questions, since I want to see the consensus from the BF2 community:

1) I'm all for no spawn camping when it's a rule, but who else things it's lame to have neutrality zones like the one presented when it comes to combat?

2) Does the ROE protect/deny this rule?

3) Is it appropriate to ban a player without being kicked first?

4) How in the world do you determine the "safe zone" in air combat around an uncap?

[buteonidae]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

This is the most stupid rule ever, I've had problems with it as well. Dogfighting, chasing the enemy jet and he just flies to the 'safe zone' because of this rule, and just cyrcles there, the admin was like 'you can't fight over the runway when the jets enter their airfield zone'... wtf! So do I just ****ing turn around and let it get me?


Just plain ****ing morans, who are too pu**y to play the game.

[troybob]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

This is the most stupid rule ever, I've had problems with it as well. Dogfighting, chasing the enemy jet and he just flies to the 'safe zone' because of this rule, and just cyrcles there, the admin was like 'you can't fight over the runway when the jets enter their airfield zone'... wtf! So do I just ****ing turn around and let it get me?


Just plain ****ing morans, who are too pu**y to play the game.

I feel like being a jerk:

shut the f*** up dude.

[12:oc7ock]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

my philosophy: any rule with the word 'uncap' in it is illegit and should be ignored

[PoRn_DarkAngel]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

Spawn Camping is a "MYTH" created by people who have nothing better to do then whine and cry.

The Game has Uncappable flags but this does not mean you can spawn without fear of getting killed, again, this is a "MYTH." If EA/Dice had ment for any player to spawn with impunity they would have not placed enemy assets in the "uncapped" flag zone for one.

An uncappable flag gives the team a bonus of never being capped out. Again it does not protect nubz from getting spawn killed.

I personally believe that if a couple of people own a server and pay for it they have the right to have a few "House Rules"; if you don't like it play elsewere. However, for those ROE lovers how come servers with spawn protection are not reported?

If the enemy players push back your team and spawn camp you in a uncappable *** you have several choices: don't spawn, your team sucks so spawn and get raped cause you deserve it, stop playing BF2 and choose a game more your speed like Donkey Kong or take off your skirt, stop your crying, Man-Up, and fight your way out of it.

[YoDiddy]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

this is why i stay in servers with the message "its war we use the entire map"

[Shepherd007]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

The Game has Uncappable flags but this does not mean you can spawn without fear of getting killed, again, this is a "MYTH." If EA/Dice had ment for any player to spawn with impunity they would have not placed enemy assets in the "uncapped" flag zone for one.

An uncappable flag gives the team a bonus of never being capped out. Again it does not protect nubz from getting spawn killed.

I agree. The Uncaps were created in order to set a gametype or battle environment like defense of a position, sustained attacks from certain areas, etc. For example, in Sharqi, the U.S. (as explained in the map's description) has just taken the port city/TV station and must defend it from MEC attack. It does not say that those three areas are part of Switzerland and must not be entered by foreign forces...

[YoDiddy]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

I agree. The Uncaps were created in order to set a gametype or battle environment like defense of a position, sustained attacks from certain areas, etc. For example, in Sharqi, the U.S. (as explained in the map's description) has just taken the port city/TV station and must defend it from MEC attack. It does not say that those three areas are part of Switzerland and must not be entered by foreign forces...

Could you rephrase the answer in the form of an question.

[W_Parmenter]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

This is a valid rule according to ROE.

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.

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.)

(e) Using transport helicopters to quickly capture all flags with no attempt to engage the other team (flag hopping).

(f) Using C4 explosives on fast-moving vehicles to destroy other vehicles (C4-ramming)

(g) Ignoring requests from Server Administrators or abusing Server Administrators.

[AlphaCueUp]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

i think its retarded.....it promotes noobism......ppl run like bitches to their safe-zone to avoid combat and stay alive

[Rifocs442]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

Zahir,
I'm going to attempt to rephrase "Shepard007" s post for him. Shepard, if my interpretation of your meaning is off, I apologize in advance.

One of the reasons upcaps were instituted in the game was to facilitate the creation of battlefield senarios where a particular area (e.g. group of Control Points) comes under sustained attack. For example, on Sharqi, by having the three MEC upcaps positioned where they are, EA and DICE were able to arrange the geography of the rest of the map with a view toward a US defense that would be oriented primarily in the direction of the nearest MEC uncap. In other words, uncaps allow for a (map) design constant which should increase the designer's ability to create a more balanced senario. Despite this use of uncaps within the design of any BF2 map, it is (Shepard's) opinion that such uncaps should not necessarily be considered "Safe Zones" where MEC forces would not have to risk the consequences of combat.

Shepard007, if you read this, how'd I do?
...and FWIW, I agree with Shepard.

[N2K]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

this is why i stay in servers with the message "its war we use the entire map"

In war you dont get 2 points per kill

[Shepherd007]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

This is a valid rule according to ROE.

(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.)

The rule you highlighted insinuates an attack on the base itself and neither approves nor denies air-to-air engagements over the uncaps.

And yes Rifocs you nailed it perfectly.

[Palerider]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

(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.)

Doesn't say anything about air to air combat...

edit: Beaten to it...

[Rifocs442]

Re: No Fighting at Uncap Rule

I wonder what EA/ DICE's intent was regarding the creation of Uncaps and subparagraph (d) of the ROE? Based on the examples given in subparagraph (d), I put forth the position that the "no fighting" rule was intended to allow players to spawn w/o immediately being killed. The spirit of the rule was to allow players to spawn and then leave the uncap to head toward the battle. This interpretation agrees with Shepard007's notion of why uncaps were created in the first place.

Thus, for air to air combat, since the pilot of the aircraft that is either running away from an enemy toward its own uncap, or merely heading toward its own uncap to rearm, has already spawned, I'd say that they should be fair game. An aircraft taking off from its runway for the first time, or a chopper taking off from the pad should not be fair game. Further, admins must enforce this rule and since soldiers on the ground move much slower than soldiers in aircraft, it is much easier to determine when someone has "crossed the line" if that line is on the ground.

** Edit - If anyone puts forth the position that "...no fighting in the safe zone, means no fighting..." then I'd like to refute that now. The ROE do allow (always) for some degree of fighting (e.g. blowing up assets) so it was clearly not the intent of the ROE to completely ban fighting around an uncap.

Also, does the area around an uncap encompass; just the 30' around the flag, 60' around the flag, 120' around the flag, and further, is the area in the shape of a sphere or a cylinder? It is completely arbitrary as to what "the area around the uncap" is. In keeping with what I think the intent of ROE (d) is, 120' within the spawn points related to the uncap would seem to make sense, giving the spawning soldiers a reasonable chance of moving out toward the battle. If we're talking about soldiers spawning, then the area would be in the shape of a sphere rather than a cylinder and thus, air to air combat high over the uncap should still be within the intent of the "no fighting" rule.

Thus, I maintain that a server rule which bans air to air combat, especially if the "defending" aircraft is fleeing back to its own uncap or is RTB'ing to rearm, is not a rule that is within the spirit and intent of the ROE paragraph (d).

To answer the other original questions, I think it is only fair that the admin kick you at least once before they ban you, especially since the rule you are breaking is open to some interpretation. If you are clearly stat padding, repeatedly intentional TK'ing or clearly using racial slurs, I can possibly see a ban w/o a kick; but for an initial infraction of breaking an arguably vauge house rule, an instant ban seems a little harsh. Oh, and "Yeah" , I think it's a little lame to have safe zones for air to air combat, but I can understand a reasonable safe zone for letting ground troops spawn at an uncap.