Custom server rules.

[Lazza66]

Increasingly I find servers with rules that forbid attacking the carrier (no arty, no jets, no strafing or bombing etc).

While I support rules against lame tactics I find the selective application of them (like this) to be quite bizarre.

Why on Oman for example, is it ok for USMC to spend the round merrily raping the MEC airfield and chopper spawn while the MEC are forbidden to so much as pop off a tank shell at the carrier? Why is only one team protected from the spawncampers, baserapers and the like?

If server admins are considering such a rule then it should be applied to ALL main bases, and all their spawn points, capturable or not.

That's right, even capturable bases. Why? Well that team already has the disadvantage of having a capturable main base, why it should also be spawncampable and baserapable whilst the enemy (already having an advantage) enjoy immunity from attack in their main.

What are these people thinking?

[RattieUK]

Re: Custom server rules.

amen brother

[=98=]

Re: Custom server rules.

Well there must be a reason as more servers have the rule than don't.

[Sike]

Re: Custom server rules.

[CKW] dont allow the attack of uncaps untill your team has capped all cappable bases.

i like that rule and i like that server because admins are on 24/7 and they are the few percentage of decent admins

[The_Misfit]

Re: Custom server rules.

rules on a ranked system, outside of normal common sense rules, are one of the things that drive me crazy in this game...

I tend not to frequent servers that dont allow attacks on uncaps. And tbh, I tend to always put myself in the action, which usually involves staying away from the uncap. I dont snipe often, so im not one of those guys perched on a hill aiming at the Helo canopy either.

Prime example - last night on a Kark64 IO server, 4-5 of my clan and myself were playing together. On USMC, we flanked, took the Suburb, and the MEC was able to spawn and move throughout the map, taking / loosing various points. Then we switch to MEC, and basically hold them from taking ANY points. Instead of sitting around waiting for them, we ran up the hill on the East side, and hung around up there, right up on their spawn, and kept the team SO occupied that they spent more time trying to get us out of there than capping flags, I think we won 203-0 or something like that. Next time we were on MEC the admin warns us "stay out of the usmc uncap or you will be banned". Ok, what were we suppoed to do ????????

[Garabaldi]

Re: Custom server rules.

They're paying for the server, they should be allowed to dictate the rules.

The good thing is, for every server with a rule you don't particularily like, there is another server with rules that will fit you're style of play.

IMO anyway.

[Lazza66]

Re: Custom server rules.

They're paying for the server, they should be allowed to dictate the rules.

The good thing is, for every server with a rule you don't particularily like, there is another server with rules that will fit you're style of play.

IMO anyway.

Would you find a custom rule odd if say only MEC were allowed to bomb ground targets?

That's similar to the no attacking uncaps or Carrier rule in that one team gets penalised and the other gets a bonus.

The "no attacking carrier" rule has been thought up completely ignoring what this does in terms of game balance. And to some extent so does the no attacking uncaps rule where only one team has an uncap.

The purpose of these rules is to prevent baserape and promote sportsmanship, but they are crude and biased.

[Spik3d]

Re: Custom server rules.

Yeah, I'm going to have to assume that you put your own picture as your avatar after I read all this.

[Lazza66]

Re: Custom server rules.

Yeah, I'm going to have to assume that you put your own picture as your avatar after I read all this.

Heard of an "ad hominem" statement? That's what you made, and it's the last thing anyone who actually has a point needs to do.

[Spik3d]

Re: Custom server rules.

Okay then.

The rule, "no attacking carrier" is 100% fair. All the USMC or whichever team is on the carrier has to get to a flag is the jets, choppers, or boats. They don't have any ground vehicles at their base. No jeeps, tanks, apc's, nothing. So, a chopper raping the carrier won't be dying anytime soon. It's very easy for a chopper crew to take out the AA on the carrier right as it spawns. It's also very easy for a pilot to dodge shoulder fired rockets. As soon as somebody were to jump in a vehicle they'd die almost instantly. There's also nowhere to really hide on a carrier. Thus anybody who spawns is a dead man.

On Oman, the MEC spawn close to buildings that they could run around and use for cover. They have ground vehicles, FAV's work wonders for taking out choppers as does a shot from a T90. Does the USMC have an Abrams on the carrier, no. Do they have a HMMWV or a DPV on the carrier as additional cover, no. The MEC have two IGLA's which are pretty small targets, there are plenty of ways to jump out of it and hide behind the sandbags.

USMC have two jets, one attack chopper, two transport choppers, two AA guns (one of which is far from any spawn point), two boats.
MEC have two jets, one attack hopper, one transport chopper, two IGLA's, one FAV, one T90, and two APC's.

Rules are made to balance the game. I play on a server with a, "No attacking choppers on pads or jets on the ground." Which compensates for the PLA to not allowed attack the carrier. If you can't stand that one simple rules so much as to where you have to make a thread searching for sympathy, then you need to find a different server for yourself.

Here's my point, good day.

[Lazza66]

Re: Custom server rules.

Okay then.

The rule, "no attacking carrier" is 100% fair. All the USMC or whichever team is on the carrier has to get to a flag is the jets, choppers, or boats. They don't have any ground vehicles at their base. No jeeps, tanks, apc's, nothing. So, a chopper raping the carrier won't be dying anytime soon. It's very easy for a chopper crew to take out the AA on the carrier right as it spawns. It's also very easy for a pilot to dodge shoulder fired rockets. As soon as somebody were to jump in a vehicle they'd die almost instantly. There's also nowhere to really hide on a carrier. Thus anybody who spawns is a dead man.

On Oman, the MEC spawn close to buildings that they could run around and use for cover. They have ground vehicles, FAV's work wonders for taking out choppers as does a shot from a T90. Does the USMC have an Abrams on the carrier, no. Do they have a HMMWV or a DPV on the carrier as additional cover, no. The MEC have two IGLA's which are pretty small targets, there are plenty of ways to jump out of it and hide behind the sandbags.

USMC have two jets, one attack chopper, two transport choppers, two AA guns (one of which is far from any spawn point), two boats.
MEC have two jets, one attack hopper, one transport chopper, two IGLA's, one FAV, one T90, and two APC's.

Rules are made to balance the game. I play on a server with a, "No attacking choppers on pads or jets on the ground." Which compensates for the PLA to not allowed attack the carrier. If you can't stand that one simple rules so much as to where you have to make a thread searching for sympathy, then you need to find a different server for yourself.

Here's my point, good day.

Err, I'm not talking at all about why the carrier is protected. But why the carrier and NOT the enemy main is protected.

The rule that you say I can't stand (that you're supporting - "No attacking choppers on pads or jets on the ground.") is exactly what I'm saying is needed (where a no attack carrier rule is also used). It's clear you either didn't read my posts or are lacking some basic comprehension skills.

Simply enforcing the rule "No attacking carrier" is NOT fair as you suggest, nor is it required for balance. The USMC already get 10% extra tickets on these maps, and in half of these maps the enemy main base is cappable, which is a huge advantage for USMC already. In some maps (e.g. Dragon Valley) it is possible for USMC to win without anyone ever even spawning on the carrier, I've seen it done.

Suggesting I'm looking for sympathy is just a bullsh!t diversion from the topic.

[Spik3d]

Re: Custom server rules.

The rule that you say I can't stand (that you're supporting - "No attacking choppers on pads or jets on the ground.") is exactly what I'm saying is needed (where a no attack carrier rule is also used). [Hypocritical statement removed]

On carrier maps with opposing uncaps, the opposing team has an advantage if the rule was not in effect on servers.

• Oman, ground access to flags, land vehicles at base.
• Dalian, same as above.
• Zatar, MEC closer to more flags at start than USMC at start. More flags give more power, more power gets more flags, until you have all but their uncaps. Then the MEC would rape the carrier.

Simply enforcing the rule "No attacking carrier" is NOT fair as you suggest, nor is it required for balance. The USMC already get 10% extra tickets on these maps, and in half of these maps the enemy main base is cappable, which is a huge advantage for USMC already. In some maps (e.g. Dragon Valley) it is possible for USMC to win without anyone ever even spawning on the carrier, I've seen it done.

And the USMC tickets are bleeding at the start. They are given the extra 10% for time to get a flag neutralized. Most of the time, they can get a flag and stop their tickets from bleeding before the tickets even out. That's usually because only a few people decide to defend forward CP's.

Suggesting I'm looking for sympathy is just a bullsh!t diversion from the topic.

Okay, now find a new server to play on. It seems that's just the case. You are playing on servers with rules you don't like. If you don't like the rules, find a new server, until you find one with rules you like. This is more worthless than all the 'abusive admin' threads. All you're doing is bitching.

I'm finding it almost impossible to counter your statements as they are disorganized and very un-clarified.

[Lazza66]

Re: Custom server rules.

On carrier maps with opposing uncaps, the opposing team has an advantage if the rule was not in effect on servers.

• Oman, ground access to flags, land vehicles at base.
• Dalian, same as above.
• Zatar, MEC closer to more flags at start than USMC at start. More flags give more power, more power gets more flags, until you have all but their uncaps. Then the MEC would rape the carrier.

Having 1 rule "no carrier attacking" simply removes the advantage from the enemy team (assuming they intended to carrier rape) and gives it to USMC. This is better for USMC but it's not fair for both teams as now USMC can spawncamp and baserape and retribution is impossible. That's a simple truth and it's impossible to argue otherwise.

It would be better, and have little effect on game balance, if every "no attacking carrier" rule had to be matched with a "no attacking main bases" rule.

These rules are NEVER put in place to balance a map. Game balance is what the game, level, and patch designers do. Changing the likelihood of a win is not something server admins intend to adjust (but with this rule they do).

And the USMC tickets are bleeding at the start. They are given the extra 10% for time to get a flag neutralized. Most of the time, they can get a flag and stop their tickets from bleeding before the tickets even out. That's usually because only a few people decide to defend forward CP's.

Okay, now find a new server to play on. It seems that's just the case. You are playing on servers with rules you don't like. If you don't like the rules, find a new server, until you find one with rules you like. This is more worthless than all the 'abusive admin' threads. All you're doing is bitching.

And all you're doing is trying to defend a position that you unwittingly got yourself into by diving in without understanding what I said. I'm not bitching at all, I'm suggesting improvements for fairness and sportsmanship in the game. If you have a problem with suggestions and discussions about improving server rules then I can't help you with that. Maybe you favour USMC and spend a lot of time baseraping the enemy uncap in your F35, is that why you're arguing it is to continue to be allowed?

I'm finding it almost impossible to counter your statements as they are disorganized and very un-clarified.

What is disorganised and un-clarified about "It would be better, and have little effect on game balance, if every "no attacking carrier" rule had to be matched with a "no attacking main bases" rule." I'd suggest if you can't comprehend that then your confusion has it's source at your end of this discussion, not mine.

My statements are deliberately generalised with general examples given because every map is different.

[kmak60]

Re: Custom server rules.

Because the side with uncaps is always the one at the disadvantage. In Wake and Dragon valley, they have less spawns, so they are forced to appear on the carrier, whereas the other team can just spawn at a different spot and avoid getting killed. The carriers also offer practically zero protection against getting bombed, and offer no cover


Not like I care, I still rape the carrier even when admins are on. There's a ranked Dragon Valley server that allows spawn raping, EUS or something like that

[Spik3d]

Re: Custom server rules.

Having 1 rule "no carrier attacking" simply removes the advantage from the enemy team (assuming they intended to carrier rape) and gives it to USMC. This is better for USMC but it's not fair for both teams as now USMC can spawncamp and baserape and retribution is impossible. That's a simple truth and it's impossible to argue otherwise.

Not quite. If the teams were even and balanced (skill level), this rule would perfectly balance the game. I've played on almost every map enough to see both teams win many, many times.

It would be better, and have little effect on game balance, if every "no attacking carrier" rule had to be matched with a "no attacking main bases" rule.

These rules are NEVER put in place to balance a map. Game balance is what the game, level, and patch designers do. Changing the likelihood of a win is not something server admins intend to adjust (but with this rule they do).

Buy your own server, f**king prick.

And all you're doing is trying to defend a position that you unwittingly got yourself into...

Don't open a paragraph with something that makes me not want to read it. Also, don't ever speak for me.

What is disorganised and un-clarified about "It would be better, and have little effect on game balance, if every "no attacking carrier" rule had to be matched with a "no attacking main bases" rule." I'd suggest if you can't comprehend that then your confusion has it's source at your end of this discussion, not mine.

How isn't your post un-clarified. I had to read over your post several times just to try understanding what you meant. It is disorganized because you had your all ideas over the place, it was similar to reading a book with all the chapters scrambled and out of order.