Server rules a little overboard

[RahXeph0n]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

Attacking uncaps would only be fair for the OVERALL gameplay if planes/vehicles spawned faster than the attacking side can keep up an attack. Otherwise, with aircraft (and possibly vehicles) pinned down, there's almost no way a pinned team can ever take back the game.

Don't give me bull about spawning as AT/Spec ops to take out a camping apc, or trying to gun down a chopper or use psychic attacks on a strafing/bombing plane. If the attacking team was competent, not even teamwork can save you. If the attacking team was more than competent, nearing nasty, you won't even be able to walk out of your spawn point.

Assuming both teams equal on wake, the USMC either has no chance to get a flag, or even if they do, it would've been too late to offset the balance of lost scores in trying to get the first flag for a win.

Bottom line is, Uncaps are for attacking teams. The reason they are uncappable is so that a steady attacking force or pressure can be maintained against the defending team, for a balanced game. If the attacking team is denied any form of attack, the game becomes a rapefest.

That said, I do think its stupid that Admins ban people for blowing up assets or defending themselves at enemy uncaps. However, this "exceptions" make rule-making difficult, and enforcing a even bigger headache.

[TotalBF2er]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

What's weird is this "Attacking uncaps" problem wasn't an issue in the early days of BF2... We all got along fine back then and dealt with it.

The only reason this is an issue in today's BF2 is that there are more players milling about the uncaps waiting/fighting over choppers/planes. Rather than leaving the uncap to cap flags, most of the 'oppressed' team is wandering about the uncap waiting to fly.

Some would say the skill of the players has gone up, so that now they're more effective at attacking/pinning down the trapped team in their uncap.

Nonsense. Everyone's skill has gone up. This means any skilled players on one team will be matched by skilled players on the other. The "Don't attack the uncap rule" has less to do with so-called 'fair-play', and more to do with admins on these servers who wanted to be protected while they sat around on their fat asses waiting for the next plane to spawn.

Like I've posted before, I don't know what it feels like to be attacked in my uncap - I'm never there...

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

First of all can we cut this "team work" crap out. Yes we all know that "team work" can get you out of most if not all scenarios in BF2. But lets be real, teamwork does not happen often in public servers. In fact can you name me one FPS where team work is applied to its fullest on public servers. And Im not talking about a one or a few servers, Im talking about the majority.

I am sick and tired of gamers creating their own rules to fit their playing style. Where's the fun in dictating to everyone how a game should be played.

It digust's me that EA would do the same thing. Instead of fixing this broken game, they go ahead and take the easy way out by creating an ROE. I was in complete disbelief when I first heard of this. Can you imagine....a FPS with Rules of Engagement? Whats next......signed contracts?

[Jlspence]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

The only problem I have with the OP's complaint and it's not a big deal with me is that I've seen many instances where a team has been unable to get their air assets off the ground simply because the op force pilot(s) are quick spawners. They spawn in and are over your airfield destroying/stealing aircraft/armor before you know what hit you. It's pretty easy to establish air superiority in that case.

Of course, this could be countered by putting in a longer delay for the round to start but most players are too impatient and will b1tch about having to wait an extra 15-30 seconds.

[GrossKopf]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

i am sick to death of people having a go at me because im commander and playing at the same time. i just want the friggen points. im sure most other people do the same thing. who says i cant command and play at the same time?

That's a whole 'nuther topic, BUT... to be an effective commander, you don't have time to do anything else, except to defend yourself if an enemy approaches your area. An effective commander has the map open, is scanning, spotting enemies, letting squad leaders know when assets are available, giving requested assets, etc... trying to do all that AND fly, drive a tank, etc, just doesn't work.

However, my clan does not restrict a commander to only commanding because it's part of our philosophy of how a server should be run.

Online gaming itself was based on the premise of competition, because Artificial Intelligence was boring today's modern gamers due to it's lack of challenge, and ease of predicatability.

That is why BF2 is a multiplayered game, and not a single playered one. The statistics is just BF2's way of adding an extra realm of competition to the game, by giving more goals for players to aspire for.

That is YOUR interpretation. I don't see playing BF2 as competing. I see it as just playing a game and having fun. As far as stats go, I think the whole stat system was a huge mistake and EA should shut it down. It has created a whole new level of cheaters that has never been seen before. It's put a dent in teamwork, creating players that only care about one thing - getting more points.

It digust's me that EA would do the same thing. Instead of fixing this broken game, they go ahead and take the easy way out by creating an ROE. I was in complete disbelief when I first heard of this. Can you imagine....a FPS with Rules of Engagement? Whats next......signed contracts?

The ROE only helps protect everyone from cheaters really.. none of their required rules are unreasonable... as far as the signed contract, do you remember clicking that little box that says that you agree with the TOS when you installed BF2? That's your signed contract.

[TotalBF2er]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

The ROE only helps protect everyone from cheaters really.. none of their required rules are unreasonable... as far as the signed contract, do you remember clicking that little box that says that you agree with the TOS when you installed BF2? That's your signed contract.

I agree with most of what you say, but I didn't sign anything about an ROE when I purchased the game. As far as I'm concerned, the BF2ROE has no place. Rules are set and agreed upon by the gaming community, and rule breakers face kicks, bans and being ostracized in other games like Counterstrike. CS had no rules, but there were still rules followed by everyone in the gaming community.

[GrossKopf]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

I agree with most of what you say, but I didn't sign anything about an ROE when I purchased the game. As far as I'm concerned, the BF2ROE has no place. Rules are set and agreed upon by the gaming community, and rule breakers face kicks, bans and being ostracized in other games like Counterstrike. CS had no rules, but there were still rules followed by everyone in the gaming community.

Then again, CS doesn't have ranked servers. The ROE mainly exists to protect all from hackers, glitchers, and cheaters from disrupting the ranked server program. You could always play unranked if you don't want to worry about the ROE. Would you rather have it so server admins decided if players should be allowed to stat pad or tell you that you can't use nades, or that only clan members can fly? That's how it would be without an ROE.

[TotalBF2er]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

Would you rather have it so server admins decided if players should be allowed to stat pad or tell you that you can't use nades, or that only clan members can fly? That's how it would be without an ROE.

They already are...

I've posted many topics about server rules on ranked servers that are over the top... ROE doesn't stop them.

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

I was surprised that the ROE was even embraced at all. I couldnt believe that no one seemed to care that DICE was taking the easy way out. If you want the game to be played a certain way, then why not (being the creator of the game) "create" the game the way its supposed to.

The simple fact that an ROE can exist with no way to monitor it is absolutely absurd.

Kindly explain to me GrossKopf exactly how the ROE "only helps protect everyone from cheaters". Im assuming you presume that everyones definition of cheater is the same. You would be wrong to presume this of course.

From your statement breaking server rules should be considered cheating as well, right? No matter what that rule might be. I mean lets face it, rules are rules and who ever doesnt follow them are blatently cheating. Of course Im being sarcastic right now.

I am just trying to point out just how rediculous the ROE is. Im not too fond of certain server rules that try to dictate what I can and cant do on the server. Yes they pay money to run the server, but is it my fault that the game does not play as they see fit?

When I play any game I take it as is or guess what? I DONT PLAY!! LET ALONE PAY TO PLAY!!

Then again, CS doesn't have ranked servers. The ROE mainly exists to protect all from hackers, glitchers, and cheaters from disrupting the ranked server program. You could always play unranked if you don't want to worry about the ROE. Would you rather have it so server admins decided if players should be allowed to stat pad or tell you that you can't use nades, or that only clan members can fly? That's how it would be without an ROE.

I disagree!! The ROE is nothing but a half a**ed attempt by DICE to fix this mess that they call BF2.

[GrossKopf]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

They already are...

I've posted many topics about server rules on ranked servers that are over the top... ROE doesn't stop them.

Then you're playing on the wrong servers. Most admins listen to the rules under fear of losing their ranked server. I am one of those admins that follow the rules.

[Gun slinger]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

I really dont see what the big deal is about attacking uncaps, if the server allows it then do it, it only pisses me off when the server doesnt allow it and kids do it anyway
I say whats fair for 1 side should be fair for the other, I play 24/7 Wake alot...usually Krackhouse, they allow base rape, and I dont mind at all if my a$$ is in a sling because we couldnt get off the ship, its our own fault because a good team will make it to land and cap a flag before the rape starts, and a good team will hold that flag
like I said it does piss me off though when a server doesnt allow attacking uncaps and my team obeys the rules but the next round when the teams switch the kiddies on the other team feel its their only way to win, that jerks my chain

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

What about maps where that rule of "no attacking uncaps" gives an advantage to one team? Sharqi is the perfect example of this. MEC is automatically given an advantage once this rule is applied.

[Gun slinger]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

but if a server doesnt allow attacking uncaps, sure it might be an advantage for the MEC team but the server SHOULD switch teams next round making it so that EVERYBODY will enjoy the advantage

the WORST scenario is allowing the attack of an uncap, but NOT switching teams after every round, this gives one and only one team an advantage
a noob could get on the right team and spend all day attacking an uncap getting cheap kills making his e-penis the size of Rhode Island

either way, no matter what the rule is... allow or not allowed, if the server switches sides after every round then the rape is distributed equally

but then again, like I said earlier, if you have a good team then there shouldnt be no raping, let them attack the uncap all they want as there shouldnt be anyone there

just play the game, have fun and if you dont like the server you can always refer to the ESC key

[RahXeph0n]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

What's weird is this "Attacking uncaps" problem wasn't an issue in the early days of BF2... We all got along fine back then and dealt with it.

The only reason this is an issue in today's BF2 is that there are more players milling about the uncaps waiting/fighting over choppers/planes. Rather than leaving the uncap to cap flags, most of the 'oppressed' team is wandering about the uncap waiting to fly.

Some would say the skill of the players has gone up, so that now they're more effective at attacking/pinning down the trapped team in their uncap.

Nonsense. Everyone's skill has gone up. This means any skilled players on one team will be matched by skilled players on the other. The "Don't attack the uncap rule" has less to do with so-called 'fair-play', and more to do with admins on these servers who wanted to be protected while they sat around on their fat asses waiting for the next plane to spawn.

Like I've posted before, I don't know what it feels like to be attacked in my uncap - I'm never there...

I WILL argue that player skills have gone up and are more effective at attacking/pinning down trapped teams. How can you say that is nonsense? No matter how skilled I am (I'm not, just an example), I can never get myself out of a situation where my spawn point is camped by a linebacker, noobtube, or a T-90, or whatever. Especially where there's a ~1second time between the time I actually have control of my character and when I spawn on the map as a target.

And yes, Of course if there are other spawn points any reasonably intelligent player would spawn elsewhere, but what it, for example, the MEC swarms over the US base in Karkand and the USMC has no other flags? Or the PLA start driving apc's out to the essex in dalian once the J-10's and the Z-10 (what's the chopper name?) start's pinning down the cobra and f35b?? Are you gonna do some magic and spawn in the middle of nowhere? If the commander had the ability to create a temporary spawnpoint every 5 minutes or so, then the rapeage wouldn't be so bad (though that would create a whole new host of unbalancing problems). But that's not the case is it?

You're argument is flawed, simple because you assume the attacking uncap rule is fair for all situations. Of course it is not. In some situations, like for example destroying commander assets, it should be allowed. However, defining all these little exceptions in the ROE is... for the lack of a better word to describe it, foolish. As admins will have a much much harder time enforcing rules, and rule breakers would be nearly impossible to prove. If they are in the ROE (I personally haven't been through it) then that's great, report admins that do not abide to the finer lines of the ROE. The rules however, have been defined for a very functional reason.

Maybe you haven't played against what we used to call (Bad mannered)BM players in Diablo2 Lingo. PvP'ers that used whatever tactic to their advantage. Everyone wants a fair game no? That's why the ROE exists. When a game loses it's fairness, it loses it's fun value.

To the people who blame the game designers for making it that way, know that it is nearly impossible programatically to enforce these rules programatically, because it will either cause a whole new world of exploits, or increase processing loads to a processor breaking level.

[TotalBF2er]

Re: Server rules a little overboard

My point is, that if your team is getting it's *** kicked, it has more to do with the lack of skill and/or drive to win by your team. No ROE is going to change that.. the only difference is that it allows the losing team to mill about their uncap at their leisure, with no incentive to leave.

Even when we have other bases to spawn at, most of the team will continue to be in the uncap fighting over planes and choppers... It's a phenomena that has occured much more when these uncap rules were set in place.

These uncap rules, in many cases, have discouraged teams from trying to win the round, and instead encouraged them to sit back and fight over planes and choppers.