Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

[Webs961]

Welcome to hot topic debate thread number two. Before participating, please read the information below.

General Debate Thread Information:

A few ground rules need to be set forth since this topic is a touchy issue in the community.

1. No personal attacks; anecdotes are fine, but character attacks are not. Read the thread title - "[Cool heads only];" that means calm language.
2. Don't attack servers; we're going for generality here, not specifics. If a specific instance will bolster your case, then feel free to use it; don't hijack the thread due to your own personal vendetta against clan X who limits kit/weapon/vehicle Y."
3. Don't feed the trolls. If someone is intentionally trying to initiate a flame war, do not respond. Use the post report button and draw it to the staff's attention. The offender will be dealt with as appropriate.
4. Please stick to the question being discussed at the time; since there are multiple sub-issues to this debate, we need to maintain a consistent and logical flow with the debate. I'll announce when we're moving to the next question.

Debate Topics:

1. Are the BFRoC effective in maintaining a consistent battlefield experience on ranked servers?
2. Are the BFRoC too specific or too general in the issues they cover?
3. If the BFRoC are, in fact, acceptable to bind server administrators into creating a fair and consistent gameplay experience, how should EA implement the BFRoC in order to achieve maximum effectiveness?

Debate Resources:

Official Battlefield Rules of Conduct
The Battlefield Rules of Engagement (The older version of the Rules of Conduct)

[Sloi sauce]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

I'll come back later, but here's my input for now:

1. No.

2. When the so-called "rules of conduct" allow administrators to limit your use of weapons/vehicles to what they consider to be acceptable - or, in other words, server owners are given the possibility of creating rules out of thin air with no precedent on which to back themselves - you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

3. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[messfeeder]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

They are a good idea, but the rules really are not enforced by EA. The problem is that you have all of these weapons restrictive servers, like k&p, where people go to stat pad, and EA does nothing really to stop it. Then the only measure they take is wiping people's stats who go on these servers, when it was probably just some noob who didn't know better about not going on those servers. Why allow these servers to continue to operate under ranked status if playing on them is considered cheating? EA needs to hold ranked server owners accountable rather than wiping people's stats for playing on the wrong servers. If EA were more strict on ranked server ownership, then there would be a lot less stat padding going on in this game.

[RangerXML]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

Very simple, the RoC are a good idea, sorta like the Geneva Convention, but hardly anyone follows them. With out a strict body to enforce them, the are just some nice words on a website. As long as no one sees or reports a problem it won't be addressed and even then false reports as long as enough douches report them could lead to resets of people that shouldn't get there account reset.

[notodd1991]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

I'll come back later, but here's my input for now:

1. No.

2. When the so-called "rules of conduct" allow administrators to limit your use of weapons/vehicles to what they consider to be acceptable - or, in other words, server owners are given the possibility of creating rules out of thin air with no precedent on which to back themselves - you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

3. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I agree with what sloi said.

[Rambo]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

isnt it ROE,and we all know some server owners have run thier own exploits and Haxs servers

[Jumintiger]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

1. Just the RoC in themselves, no. Nobody will follow them if nobody enforces them.
2. They're just about right. I haven't had any "gray" issues pop up, no questions so far. They're pretty much the same as the RoE.
3. EA has to police the network. Not the servers themselves, mind you, but they have to just ban IP addresses that host servers with names that are obviously havens for RoC breakers.

So overall, I think, yes, it is a step in the right direction, but no way is this going to be the final solution. To take the comparison with the Geneva Convention a bit farther, this is like if, say, Qatar suddenly said "NO TANKS ALLOWED IN WARFARE!" not one country in the world would disband their armored corps. I think the RoC are a good idea but I doubt they will actually help.

[Wizrdwarts]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

This isn't war though, it's a video game. It's EA's stats servers and ranking system, in this case, they can do whatever they want with the rules, unlike the ranked server owners in BF2/2142.

[imported_Chael]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

Under the list of examples for acceptable server rules:

"Disallowing repeated main base camping/attacking of bases that cannot be captured. However, in such cases, attacking the base with reasonable intent to take out assets (artillery, command outpost, or radar) are acceptable. "

According to this, servers that will allow you to destroy assets at the main base so long as you don't kill anyone are in violation of the BFRoC. This pretty much says you can defend yourself when destroying assets regardless of the rules set by the admins.

I don't really agree with having rules of conduct. The rules on servers are always ambiguous and each admin interprets them differently. For example, say a server has the rule "don't spawncamp; get the flag or leave". It sounds pretty clear, roughly meaning that you shouldn't shoot freshly-spawned enemies unless you're getting the flag. But what about when you apply this to jets or helicopters? Is it okay for them to attack bases that aren't being captured? Some admins will say yes, and some will say no; it's rarely stated in the rules.

I would much prefer that the rules of conduct stated that admins cannot impose any rules upon players.

Sloi touched on one issue that is covered by the BFRoC but not enforced: Admins making up rules out of thin air. The BFRoC states, "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." This means that even scrolling rules are against the BFRoC unless they are also posted in the server name or the server message.

Basically, allowing admins to impose their own rules on ranked servers just causes way too many problems. Unless (and even if) these rules are set up as server-side options they will never be properly and fairly enforced.

[Sloi sauce]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

I have a problem with these rules for practical reasons.

If the overall goal of the game is to decrease the opposing team's tickets by eliminating players and putting a ticket bleed on them through flag control, and preventing the enemy from defending against your attacks by continually destroying their assets and keeping them grounded / disorganized greatly increases your chances of accomplishing that main goal, how does it make any sense to have limitations on what you can do?

Remember, we're at war... so limiting ourselves makes absolutely no sense from a tactical/strategic perspective. I can understand them wanting to make the experience fun for everyone by reducing the chances that a team will dominate the other and make it practically impossible for them to fight back, but that's ****** war. Deal with it.

And another quickie: if something is in the game, who are you to tell us that we can't do it? If a player goes outside what the game engine normally allows, by all means go ahead and punish him... but when he simply performs actions that anyone can replicate, why are administrators allowed to create artificial limitations preventing those actions from being performed?

Just another reason I had to stop playing this game: too much ****** preventing people from playing the game.

[Fingulfin]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

"They are more guidelines than actual rules..."

A rule unenforced is a rule ignored. The RoC is completely unenforced; as such it is ignored. It has no use, no place in the BF Universe... Until EA starts caring, things will continue as they always have.

[Wizrdwarts]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

I can understand them wanting to make the experience fun for everyone by reducing the chances that a team will dominate the other and make it practically impossible for them to fight back, but that's ****** war.

In the case of good servers, the majority of the rules are there to preserve fun. It's not "****** war", it's a game.

[Sloi sauce]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

In the case of good servers, the majority of the rules are there to preserve fun. It's not "****** war", it's a game.

It's a war game/simulation. Would you prevent your troops from attacking the main area and all enemy assets?

[=)BiT(= Evant3k]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

I love admins that believe you can't virtually see and shoot infantry with a jet, and assume its a hack. I always end up getting banned from wake servers for gunning down people on the ground with my F-35.

I have seen a lot of silly rules:

No claymores C4 at flags
No bunny hopping, dolphin diving.
No solo TV missiles.
No flying with a ping below 100...
No artillery, UAV or Commanders...
No c4 cars.

Then there are the "time padding servers", knife and pistol servers and stat padding servers. I'm tired of seeing 3 star generals that can't pull of a 3/1 - K/D. I mean they played so long and they still suck...

RoE looks good on paper, but hardly anyone ever follows it.

[[GCA]Tim270]

Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

I have a problem with these rules for practical reasons.

If the overall goal of the game is to decrease the opposing team's tickets by eliminating players and putting a ticket bleed on them through flag control, and preventing the enemy from defending against your attacks by continually destroying their assets and keeping them grounded / disorganized greatly increases your chances of accomplishing that main goal, how does it make any sense to have limitations on what you can do?

Remember, we're at war... so limiting ourselves makes absolutely no sense from a tactical/strategic perspective. I can understand them wanting to make the experience fun for everyone by reducing the chances that a team will dominate the other and make it practically impossible for them to fight back, but that's ****** war. Deal with it.

And another quickie: if something is in the game, who are you to tell us that we can't do it? If a player goes outside what the game engine normally allows, by all means go ahead and punish him... but when he simply performs actions that anyone can replicate, why are administrators allowed to create artificial limitations preventing those actions from being performed?

Just another reason I had to stop playing this game: too much ****** preventing people from playing the game.

Exactly what I think.

I payed for this game and I intend to play it how it was designed to be played, not how some server admin tells me to play it.