Anyone else notice the correlation

[Teh_Diplomat]

Between good servers that have etiquette VS the servers who have ridiculous rules, being terrible?



Take for example the two types of servers that list rules in the Server Message.


Server 1 w/ Etiquette
- No Attacking Carrier until USMC have one flag.
- Wait your turn for Vehicles
- No Commanders flying



Server 2 w/ harsh rules
- No attacking uncap's. Ever.
- No jets beyond Arty Island(Wake Island 2007)
- Commanders not allowed in vehicles(yes I've seen this one before)




I've found in my time playing pub servers that those with rules that are sensible also are more enjoyable as opposed to the ones who state ridiculous rules that impede gameplay.

Take for instance the key issue of Attacking Carrier. The first server states, not until; thus ensuring that the USMC get a fair chance to get to the mainland before the bombarding begins on the Essex. This also ensures that you don't have 8 guys waiting for a 2 seater Helo when the rest of the team is attempting to grab more territory.

Not allowing any attacks; ever, promotes and condones turtling by the USMC and it seems like they're not even participating as many members of the US Team simply become bench warmers.

It also makes no logical sense because the USMC can shoot down jets still on the runway on both Oman and Wake just as much as the opposition, this in turn becomes lopsided when you're not allowed to attack the Essex.


There's also the issue of allowing Commanders to use vehicles, normally this isn't even needed as a good team(read: squads who work together), but on occasion a Cmder may need to hop in a tank to defend a flag.



It is in one's opinion that the servers that allow free play are far more enjoyable than those that restrict gameplay to allow what in their eyes is probably seen as "evening the playing field".


Your Thoughts?

[Sloi sauce]

B*tching increases proportionally with Freedom. If you don't have many rules to enforce, your time will be spent dealing with people complaining about being baseraped, among other things.

[Teh_Diplomat]

B*tching increases proportionally with Freedom. If you don't have many rules to enforce, your time will be spent dealing with people complaining about being baseraped, among other things.

I've found that asshats are always going to be asshats; regardless of the rules you attempt to enforce. Even in those servers that disallow Base raping it still happens by somebody, may as well just say "Yes, but not yet.". What are the consequences to the culprit? kicked for 60 seconds? Banned from one of 900 servers? Woe is me

[Metal Knight]

yeah diplomat i agree,

ive seen alot of rules similar to this, what i dont understand is if EA have disallowed gun and knife servers etc. because they "modify gameplay" then why have they allowed servers to impose rules as these, surely they "modify gameplay" as well.

=/

[Teh_Diplomat]

yeah diplomat i agree,

ive seen alot of rules similar to this, what i dont understand is if EA have disallowed gun and knife servers etc. because they "modify gameplay" then why have they allowed servers to impose rules as these, surely they "modify gameplay" as well.

=/

I just don't understand the harshness of the rules is all, and when those rules are broken people start to spazz out and start screaming about the "newb baseraping pilots" as if they are somehow entitled to not being attacked on the carrier. And this is from someone who spends more of their time on the ground and when a vehicle, in a tank.

I think those rules in the strict servers only serve as a false sense of security. You're not impervious to attacks on the carrier; so you may as well condone within reason, ie: allowing attacks AFTER a flag has been capped. Then the pilot at least has some restraint because he knows in about two minutes after the game started he can mop up the deck of campers and llamas.

Additionally it impedes on game tactics when the US can keep the J-10 grounded but The Chinese can not keep the F35 grounded. Double standards don't help in any situation.

[=98=]

I would never play on a baseraping server as i believe you can never escape especially if your on the Essex.

But, i also believe that if someone pays to rent a server, they should be able to enforce whatever rules. And, if they are unpopular and rubbish rules, then the server will be empty.

[Metal Knight]

it impedes on game tactics when the US can keep the J-10 grounded but The Chinese can not keep the F35 grounded. Double standards don't help in any situation.

it def does. i personally think all servers should just play as EA made them, no rules unless stated by EA. that would be great, ive yet to see a server with no rules...

i also believe that if someone pays to rent a server, they should be able to enforce whatever rules. And, if they are unpopular and rubbish rules, then the server will be empty.

yeh but most of the time it takes me forever to connect to a server and sometimes i get the "your connection to the server has been lost" message that i am just glad to be in a server where i dont lose connection, so i dont want to risk leaving, despite the bad (IMO) rules and sometimes hackers lol.

having said that, i agree with what you said, if they have paid to rent the server then they can do with it what they wish.

would just be nice to have a server where you CAN use C4's and you CAN use claymores to destroy assets/ protect your *** respectivley. its a damn war game how do you expect people to "play by rules" although i can see people pointing out that its just that a game and that even wars have ROW (rules of war).

its actually an interesting debate this is.. :nod:

[=98=]

Dude, you get the Connection lost warnings and random browser crashed when running BF2 at uni as well?

They are driving me mad. I have to go to a server via Xfire otherwise it just gives me a connection error grrrr

[Metal Knight]

Dude, you get the Connection lost warnings and random browser crashed when running BF2 at uni as well?

They are driving me mad. I have to go to a server via Xfire otherwise it just gives me a connection error grrrr

no for some reason i dont! but i dont wanna jinx it!, i used to get it a shedload back home...i dont know why but here i dont seem to get it - beraing in mindt his is the first time i play it at uni...

im not complaining, at home i dont get it sometimes, so it just happens randomly *shrugs* hope it doesnt too happen to much for you mate, cuz its so frustrating isnt it!!

[imported_kiwi]

Dunno, attacking AA in uncap or essex on carrier is often allowed as well as dogfighting above uncap is allowed

[LightBred]

People whine too much.

I still will never understand how disallowing uncap attacking isn't against the ROE.

[Lazza66]

People whine too much.

I still will never understand how disallowing uncap attacking isn't against the ROE.

The ROE specifically permits such rules. Personally I can take or leave custom rules, it's rule breakers that ruin the game.

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

(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.)

[Nadokings]

WOW, that is nothing compared to some of the lame **** i'v seen.

I'v seen rules as gay as:

NO SNIPER KITS
NO JETS/HELI'S (on gulf of oman wtf mate?)
NO NADE SPAM
COMMANDERS CANNOT ATTACK

yeah thats right, it was about a year ago, but god it was brutal i left instantly.

[Webs961]

I find it difficult to define what is or is not "Nade spam."

How many grenades per period of time (let's say 10 seconds) would constitute nade spam? Leaving those rules like that open to interpretation invites abuse by administrators and complaints from players.

In my experience, keeping the rules as specific as possible helps cut down on the complaining.

[LightBred]

The ROE specifically permits such rules. Personally I can take or leave custom rules, it's rule breakers that ruin the game.

2.3.2 Allowed “In-House” Ranked Server Rules:

(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.)

I know the ROE mentions it, what I mean is how it's not limiting a player. 99.9% of the time, NO ATTACK ON CARRIER means just that. That kinda knocks spec ops out of a job unless they just want to hit arty the entire round.

There is no way possible for them to get on the carrier to destroy assets without having to fire on and/or kill an enemy. It's a bit contradicting. Especially since USMC just sits around waiting for the chopper/jets with their thumbs up their asses.

Same thing with most uncaps with assets, many admins expect no firing in uncap as there "NO ATTACKING UNCAP" rule.... So how is it not limiting someone when they can't so much as kill an enemy to carry out their task making it impossible.