Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

    The authority should be EA's, not the admins, aside from them being allowed to kick people for intentional TKing/griefing/cheating. Ranked server rules should be few and very specific. If you wish to run a ranked server it should be required that it be run a certain way and the admins should have very limited powers, and shouldn't be allowed to dictate how the game is played. But like Fin said, since the rules aren't enforced, they are ignored. When there are servers that literally have 'Knife/Pistol only' or 'Timepad!' in their titles, you know that EA is doing bugger all about it. The RoE is a good idea, but it's not implemented and instead of 'illegal' servers getting shut down, innocent players like moose or tim get wiped for anomalous, yet 100% legit, stats.

    But consider this: Does EA get money from individual players or from ranked server rentals? That's why they have no problem wiping a player as opposed to shutting down a revenue stream.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

      Originally posted by Sloi sauce
      It's a war game/simulation. Would you prevent your troops from attacking the main area and all enemy assets?
      It's not that simple. For one: it's not a simulation, it's a game.
      Even when I went to the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), we didn't run into the OPFOR barracks and massacre everyone. It's just not what you do. There is no training effect and it's no fun for anyone. Why would you even want to spawnrape the enemy team? How is that fun for you? With one team sitting in the other's uncap, killing everyone as they spawn, it isn't fun for anyone. It's just a quick way to empty out a server. Especially if the teams are stacked.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

        Originally posted by Unnamed Assailant
        It's not that simple. For one: it's not a simulation, it's a game.
        Even when I went to the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), we didn't run into the OPFOR barracks and massacre everyone. It's just not what you do. There is no training effect and it's no fun for anyone. Why would you even want to spawnrape the enemy team? How is that fun for you? With one team sitting in the other's uncap, killing everyone as they spawn, it isn't fun for anyone. It's just a quick way to empty out a server. Especially if the teams are stacked.
        Public play, perhaps.

        In ladders/tournaments, you bet your beautiful behind that we spawnraped: why give them the chance to fight back and possibly turn things around when you can guarantee their demise?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

          Originally posted by Sloi sauce
          Public play, perhaps.

          In ladders/tournaments, you bet your beautiful behind that we spawnraped: why give them the chance to fight back and possibly turn things around when you can guarantee their demise?

          Games aren't made for ladder/tournament play, though. There just isn't enough money to be made just catering to the elite. Of course in competition you're going to pound the enemy and use every advantage at your disposal. No mercy. But in pub play, that doesn't work very well.

          That's another reason why I think they make changes to gameplay that might offend "pros." Some things that people have spent time getting used to and practicing, such as exploiting/overcoming the engine limitations and hitbox problems, cause newer players to leave and tell their friends not to buy the game. No one really wants to be required to spend 20 hours in single-player learning game mechanics and >1000 hours in multiplayer learning things like how far off you need to aim in order to hit someone hopping or prone-spamming or sliding. People expect to be able to aim at another player and get kills, not dust clouds.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

            Well, I suggest they go play Unreal or CS then...

            I hear COD4 is pretty forgiving for distance and hit detection.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

              Originally posted by Sloi sauce
              Public play, perhaps.

              In ladders/tournaments, you bet your beautiful behind that we spawnraped: why give them the chance to fight back and possibly turn things around when you can guarantee their demise?

              And how many play pubs vs. how many play competitively? Rules like no spawnrape are perfectly acceptable in pub servers.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                This thread puts an end to the "how DICE meant the game to be played" arguments. People believe because there is a no entry sign at UCB's base raping should not be allowed, however, I was quite shocked to find BF2's associate producer is all for base rape as discussed here; so I guess it is intended by the games makers. Though they do state that it is down to the servers discretion if it is allowed or not.

                http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...efendable.html

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                  Nothing wrong with it imo, some of my funnest times have been attacking the carrier on Oman with a skycow and raping on deck, not my fault people would rather wait for a jet then defend a flag.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                    Originally posted by Calibre
                    This thread puts an end to the "how DICE meant the game to be played" arguments. People believe because there is a no entry sign at UCB's base raping should not be allowed, however, I was quite shocked to find BF2's associate producer is all for base rape as discussed here; so I guess it is intended by the games makers. Though they do state that it is down to the servers discretion if it is allowed or not.

                    http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...efendable.html
                    If they didn't want people baseraping, they'd have invisible walls/areas that trigger like the out-of-bounds zone for enemy combatants. People forget sh*t like this when they force their preferred ways of playing down your throat.

                    Posts made by a DICE employee:

                    Ok this is why we leave this down to each server.
                    However a way to think about this is like so... Battlefield is a sandbox FPS and if attacking uncaps wasn't part of the game then we would have implemented some kind of automated base defence. Basics... If you get pushed back to your base you better find a way out cos I'm coming in after you
                    Another way to look at it is that if they are in their uncap you may as well go in and destroy them to end the round quicker.
                    The main problem I have seen as I have mentioned before is that if a team does get pushed back to their uncap they basically give up trying to push out. Also the game doesnt set boundaries of what an uncap base is its all down to individual servers.
                    As I say, if you weren't meant to be able to go into uncaps to kill people there would be a game mechanic that would stop you from doing it but there isn't, simple as

                    I still think they should've forced people to play the game in a PURE state. When you leave the door open for admins to "tweak" the game, you end up with even more bullsh*t than you otherwise would've had. All things considered, I'd rather have only one problem to deal with (being pushed back) than have to deal with a bunch of arbitrary rules and conditions everywhere I go. It's just f*cking annoying and against the spirit of the game.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                      Does a no baserape rule really ruin your fun that much? :hmm:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                        There are, IMO, too many people out there who are only intent on winning. They are good at exploiting (not in a "cheat" sense) design flaws or bugs in the game to give them an advantage.

                        As others have said, although these games to some degree or another simulate or portray a war environment, they are still "games". The intent is for players on both sides to have fun, even though there is a winner and a loser.

                        When games are being designed and built, developers cannot always know exactly how the community at large will play it. The devs have an idea in their head, but "paper" is different from "practice", and sometimes there are bugs/flaws that can change things immensely. And if you're not on the receiving end of the raping, you often can't appreciate just how severe it is.

                        If you're playing Monopoly with some friends, and you figure out a way to always roll the number you want on the dice, or some other strange combo that allows you to dominate, then the game soon becomes not fun for the other players, and they will stop playing with you. I'm not saying to dumb-down everything...video games still should be won on skill, smarts, and teamwork...but there has to be a line in terms of what is "sporting" and what isn't, IMO. The concepts of "fair play" and "sportsmanship" are largely lost on the general Net crowd, unfortunately.

                        ..

                        Again as others have said, when it comes to the Internet, probably more so than general society, a rule without enforcement is largely ignored. With the anonymity of players online, there is much, much less accountability...that old "smacktard" cartoon of the blackboard comes to mind.

                        These games are so complex that the unexpected can occur in terms of how they are played and exploited by some. IMO, unfortunately, some RoC's need to be in place and added/adjusted on the fly as the game lifecycle goes on. But without enforcement, they are largely meaningless.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                          Originally posted by Wizrdwarts
                          Does a no baserape rule really ruin your fun that much? :hmm:
                          Yes. More importantly, it's the principle and the fact that it becomes a slippery slope...

                          I really don't feel like expounding right now, so I'll just come back and explain myself later if it's really necessary.

                          Comment


                          • #28

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                              Originally posted by Sloi sauce
                              Yes. More importantly, it's the principle and the fact that it becomes a slippery slope...

                              I really don't feel like expounding right now, so I'll just come back and explain myself later if it's really necessary.
                              Nah, I get what you're saying from that. But I suppose the RoC is meant to stop the slide, isn't it?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Debate: The BFRoC -- Are they a step in the right direction? [Cool heads only]

                                Originally posted by Wizrdwarts
                                Nah, I get what you're saying from that. But I suppose the RoC is meant to stop the slide, isn't it?
                                If it's enforced, absolutely. The problem is, there is no benefit for EA (monetarily) to enforce their rules; therefore, why should they?

                                This is why you had community groups collecting batch reports and submitting them to EA, although we all know how well that turned out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X