BF2 ROE needs some work!

[imported_Sim]

The ROE does need some major work, there too many ways a person could Interpret rules the wrong way.

If you ask people at BFROE or BF2RS they just go by how they think it should be and not EA itself.
Even if you look the word up in the dictionary and it shows how it could mean something else they will still say you are wrong.

Most of the admins at BF2RS are from newbie clans that want to have their own custom rules so they can bend the ROE how they want it.
Like you must wait inline for a air vehicle, the ROE says you can't restrict a person from using any class/kit or vehicle, so they shouldn't allow server to have a rule "you must wait inline", when you have noob players Interpreting the rules how they see fit you run into problems.

If DICE didn't want people to have another chance at air vehicles why did they make its respawn longer then a players or limit how many people can spawn at the airfields/carrier without spawn time increasing if too many people try to spawn there.

[ELI]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

If there's ever a question about interpretation we always contact EA/DICE for their ruling on it.

[lostinspace]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

Forget about the ROE...

example:

"
you can't restrict a person from using any class/kit or vehicle
"

true, but it does not specify HOW you or WHEN you can use it...


Then again, when the ROE is very clear on something it gets ignored...

"
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.
"

The before part is very very clear, yet ignored...

[TotalBF2er]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

BFROE has no place in BF2 gameplay at all. Cheats are handled by PunkBuster and player observation. No need for ROE at all. Everyone knows how to play fair and respectful - if they don't it's because they choose to act that way. No amount of rules will change that.

When I paid $69.99 for BF2, it didn't say on the box that I'd have to follow some self-appointed regulatory body that says I can't attack uncaps, etc.

Some of the best gameplay happened when BF2 first came out, before the pansy-asses started making stupid rules.

[Scinto]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

PB dont exactly do a good job at blocking the cheats, ive submitted cheats/hacks to PB and got the distinct impression they didnt know anything about them

[TotalBF2er]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

I wasn't discussing the quality of PB, just mentioning it in passing

[imported_TheDragon]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

BFROE has no place in BF2 gameplay at all. Cheats are handled by PunkBuster and player observation. No need for ROE at all. Everyone knows how to play fair and respectful - if they don't it's because they choose to act that way. No amount of rules will change that.

When I paid $69.99 for BF2, it didn't say on the box that I'd have to follow some self-appointed regulatory body that says I can't attack uncaps, etc.

Some of the best gameplay happened when BF2 first came out, before the pansy-asses started making stupid rules.

in general I agree with you
always have
BUT - I AM also a supporter of the INTENT of before
and for the most part, do believe they have helped improve the overall sense of gameplay and integrity in the community
BTW
we used to have no rules - free for all to kill anyway you wanted
(no Hax of course)
but as we all got better, it we all CRUSHED the noobs
so we started no spawn camping and no uncaps attacks
sure, our scores dropped but more players had fun as a result

but players should not be wiped for not following BFROE rules they may not have read

[davelisowski]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

I really don't understand all the anti-BFROE sentiment on this forum. Just imagine what the game would be like with no rules at all. People, or groups of people, would rent servers to abuse and exploit the game. Admins would have excessive power in determining your "right" to play on a server. There would be complete exploitation of the stats system (way more so than now).

That being said, there are ambiguous things in the ROE (I think the stat system needs a big overhaul too). Many of the ambiguities, however, come from optional rules.

As for not being wiped for not reading the ROE... in other games you can get banned or kicked for breaking the EULA. Who reads that? It's usually about 15 pages of text in a little box when you go to install the game. However, there really is no such thing with BF2 and ROE (as much as I can remember). I haven't re-installed/installed since I bought the game. Perhaps different levels of "punishment?" Would it be possible to erase a round of stats, like say, after someone play on K&P?

Regardless, the ROE is definitely a good thing, with good intentions. I know good intentions aren't enough to make something good, but afaik, this is the first time something like this has been tried.

Plus, if you have such major problems with ROE, then play on unranked servers or mods. No one is stopping you.

[TotalBF2er]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

I really don't understand all the anti-BFROE sentiment on this forum.

Because BFROE type rules still put one party at a disadvantage in a game, by trying to give others the advantage, if that makes sense.

For example, the 'don't attack uncap' rule. Why the hell not? The first thing I'd do is make sure the enemy air force does not get their planes off the runway - because if they do then they could be a menace in the sky and to ground troops. I can't count how many times I've been bombed on the ground because an enemy plane was allowed to lift off and return to base without any consequence whatever. The enemy uncap has AA and the Essex has an anti-air gun as well for defense against this. If a team can't get out of the uncap at the start of the round for any reason, that is the fault of their team, not the game's mechanics. Now we have entire teams milling about on the Essex/uncap waiting/fighting over/tking for the planes instead of capping. At least if we could attack their uncaps (by any means) they wouldn't be able to 'take their time' as it were to leave their uncap. As it stands right now, they can sit in their all day...

The best rounds in BF2 were when you could land on the Essex as a sniper, and pick off the guys until they realized where you were, and send a defense squad after you, or spec ops, or whatever. Part of war is sending units behind enemy lines to cause havoc and disarray and panic. ROE would like to see this eliminated.

Other rules such as 'Spec Ops must leave after blowing up assets' is another new rule to surface on many servers (not sure if ROE applies), but could easily be assigned under "don't attack uncaps" because now Spec OPs can't slink around enemy uncaps rigging their planes, etc. Some may think this is a cheap tactic - cheap or not, it's war - again it's a havoc move.

Teams attacking my uncaps doesn't bother me, because I'm usually not inside them milling about to even worry about it.. I'm too busy capping flags to care.

Other games don't have these stupid rules, nor do they have regulatory bodies trying to tell us the way we play is wrong. Rules will be implied and taught by the gaming community itself, not some small group of playground babies who want their proverbial cake and to eat it too "Wah, I can't get my plane off the carrier, because the other team actually got organized first" "Wah, I can't stand around in my uncap without fear of dying", "Wah, this spec ops won't leave and keeps blowing up my stuff after i drop my magic box to repair it", "Wah, I can't stop enemies from stealing my vehicles", "Wah, I can't leave my base because someone is camping it and won't let me out - tell them to move away" "Wah, wah wah"

Meanwhile, players are being kicked and banned for simply playing the game within the parameters available in the game which they paid for.

Yes, rules are important, and fair play should be promoted. But fair doesn't mean that someone else's options should be restricted because some players can't hack it. That goes against all sense of competitive play. Short of cheats , hacks and exploits, every tactic should be available.

Ahh, I wish for the good old days, when I could sneak onto the enemy carrier, and slink around everyone on the upper deck, and rig their Blackhawk with C4... all the while going unnoticed by anyone, then hide right beside the Essex gun (which was manned) and blow up the BH as it leaves, and laugh at the "WTF!" that happened. Now, they have no fear, because if I pulled that tactic now, I'd most likely get banned for "attacking an uncap".

[davelisowski]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

I do believe the "No attacking uncap" rule is an optional rule.

I would hardly call someone spawning at the J10 and flying towards the carrier to bomb the living day lights out of everyone there, then to swing around and cannon everything else "the other team getting organized first." It's just who spawned first and could get to the carrier the quickest. A BH has absolutely no defenses against a J10, and neither do RIBs. Sure someone could jump in the Essex cannon, and maybe shoot down the J10 (assuming the Essex cannon is still there).

This is all hypothetical, based on an "allowed in-house rule." It is not a rule for all servers.

[signa]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

I think one of the biggest problems is there needs to be more action taken against servers and admins who exploit the roe or use their admin panel to kick/ban unjustified. when a valid complaint comes in that server should be warned and penalized by being becoming temporarily unranked for a set period of time or days.

[ELI]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

The no attacking uncaps is a server admin option. This is not a mandatory requirement.

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behavior 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.)

[lostinspace]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

The no attacking uncaps is a server admin option. This is not a mandatory requirement.

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behavior 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.)

"
as long as these are clearly stated before a player starts playing on a server.
"

How can an admin explain their rules BEFORE a player starts playing..?

[TotalBF2er]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

Sure someone could jump in the Essex cannon, and maybe shoot down the J10 (assuming the Essex cannon is still there).

So why don't they? Because of lack of teamwork, thats why. It always boils down to lack of teamwork. As a player on a team, you make a sacrifice, and be an engineer, man the Essex guns, make some kills, take some deaths (if not you repair it), until your team gets off the boat safely. This promotes teamwork.

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behavior 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.

Now this is a perfect example of what the OP is talking about. This statement is quite general, and can be interpreted to allow any rule that places 'minor' restrictions. Where is the line between a 'minor' restriction and a 'major' one?

I consider it a 'major' restriction to not allow attacking of uncaps. That is a HUGE leap as far as I'm concerned. What about other rules?

1) "Spec Ops must leave uncap after destroying commander assets"
As I had mentioned before, this goes under 'don't attack uncaps" which is a major restriction on someone's gameplay. Many servers enforce this - after the enemy commander simply drops a magic box on the target you just destroyed to repair it. Then if you hang around to restock and blow it up again, you're camping the uncap - a kick or ban follows.

2) "Don't steal enemy planes/jeeps/choppers from enemy uncap" Same as above defaults to "don't attack uncap"

3)"Dont camp in uncaps (sniping) or mill about" Same as "don't attack uncap".

4)"If spec op squad, only 2 spec ops allowed at anyone time. No supply guy or other class allowed in squad" "Spec ops cannot drive into enemy uncap", etc.

The point I'm making is, that what you call 'minor' game changes are in fact quite game breaking when it comes to how one plays a class, and it's role in the game - ie., Spec Ops is specifically a class for destroying assets, sabotage and subterfuge. This is most effective in the enemy uncaps, or enemy main bases.

I think the BF2ROE groups time should be better specifying what is a 'minor' restriction versus a 'major' restriction, since we all have our own opinions on that.... or leave the game as it was intended by EA out of the box... free to play as you want -within the parameters of the game.

The problem is that you can't simply 'play on another server', since many think this is now an acceptable rule, especially if the server is run by players who like to fly...

[RocketChild]

Re: BF2 ROE needs some work!

Forget about the ROE...

example:

"
you can't restrict a person from using any class/kit or vehicle
"

true, but it does not specify HOW you or WHEN you can use it...


Then again, when the ROE is very clear on something it gets ignored...

"
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.
"

The before part is very very clear, yet ignored...

I find it very amusing that on the Insomnia servers (granted, I have not been there in a month) never showed the rules on the splash screen. But then you would have ROE people typing in at the console, with nanny comments on game play etiquette/rules.

If that quote is accurate, they are not leading the way on the servers they maintain.

I will not forget getting into it in December with Indian on Insomnia365@Sharqi about commanders not being in a vehicle. He typed into the console that they need to command and command only. Being someone with a backbone, I questioned him on it, typing while fighting. They had been maintaining the servers for a few weeks and did not have any of the scrolling rules ingame yet. The splash screen only showed a pointer to comments and questions directed to an IRC room or website. No Rules.

A few hours later, IS posts in the ROE forum asking how people felt about the commander and fighting.

http://www.bfroe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1974

I have said my peace many times in other threads. So, I don't really want to go on a huge rant here. I like the concept...but hey, communism sounds great on paper too.