BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

[« R²» HKS]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

I did read the damn RoE you a$$hat but it doesn't say anything about FF.

Private ranked servers can have FF off its not against the ROE at all however EA recommend to have it on though as I said they won't do anything to a server that has it off.

I hope this clears it up for you.

What you guys need to remember is some of the early replies that the BF2RS guys made are now no longer valid. The ROE is being tweaked still. Some rules have already been changed, some may still be changed or added later.

E.G.
Commanders don't fly and should command properly, was against the ROE, within a small period of the discussion opening made a complete about face saying that we can run this rule. Same as a server forcing players to join a squad. This use to be against an early version of the ROE, now it is not and servers can enforce that rule.

People will need to check back regularly for updates is all I can suggest as its still I believe a work in progress and may be tweaked further.

[EsP-Grandpa]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

It should be obvious to anyone who takes a moment to think about it.

These rules basicly state that you cannot tell that they are not alowed to use vehicles, kits, resources. You can't make a rule that says "Vehicles are for clan memebers only" or "only use knives and pistols" or "no snipers".

However, it is permissable to restrict certain behaviours that involve those assets in order to promote better public game play. By stating that you cannot attack uncappable bases they are not saying you can't use a plane, they are saying you can't use a plane to blow the living crap outta uncappable bases.

The real problem here is that so many BF2 players (actually, people in general) that have a very hard time with the idea of respect. If you're playing on a server that has local server rules, it's up to you to respect them. Disrespecting those rules doesn't make you cool. It makes you an ass. If you don't agree with those local rules, fine. No one is making you play there. There's lots of other servers.

Well, I have thought about it and it is NOT obvious. The title is RULES of engagement, not SUGGESTIONS of engagement.

IF they are RULES, they should be CLEAR and they should be CONSISTENT.

You interpet them to mean "it is permissable to restrict certain behaviours that involve those assets". OK, so I can set a rule that says "You can't bomb the uncappable base or the first base next to it". Or how about "You can only use artillery on YOUR bases, not the enemies. That is just restricting the BEHAVIOR, not the ASSET. It fits with your "Well, its obvious" interpetation. It isn't so obvious now, is it?

MAKE IT OBVIOUS. SPELL IT OUT. MAKE IT CLEAR AND CONSISTENT. What is wrong with making it clear so there is no misunderstanding?

If you can't make a RULE so that it is VERY CLEAR what can and can not be done, call it a suggestion, not a rule.

[PHPT]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

If you can't make a RULE so that it is VERY CLEAR what can and can not be done, call it a suggestion, not a rule.

There is always gonna be gray area, and it's very rare that anyone with a drop of common sense will run in to them.

Here's what's not allowed:
- Doing things that have no point at all beyond boosting your own score.
- Flat-out barring everyday players from ever using specific kits, weapons, or vehicles.

Here's what's allowed:
- Everything else.


If you're not stat padding and you're not making rules like "no grenade launchers" or "no APCs" or "no artillery" or "no medics" then you don't even need to THINK about the ROE.

[JarEme]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

So you've no problem with a rule that restricts the usage of a certain weapon so greatly as to make it essentially useless? For example, "m203s may only be used against aircraft."

EsP-Grandpa is dead on. They shouldn't have rules without their scope properly defined. As of now, it makes the actual rules almost meaningless. Until they get it worked out, it's best to prohibit any restriction on action.

[WarGimp]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Oh for the love of God, JarEme, will you please stop jerking off in public?

These rules, as stated, make a good base of acceptable setup. Any reasonable person should be able to accept them without trying to make up BS excuses.

This really is the core problem with the BF2 community. Too many twinks that want to enforce their way on everyone. If someone want's to make a local rule that doesn't directly impact your scoring, how you gain rank/stats/awards, or screw people over, then what's the big fruggin deal?

Damn people.

[JarEme]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

I've no problem with such a rule, but local rules rarely limit themselves to such unobtrusive things.

Perhaps reasonable people will follow the rules as their creators intended, but that still leaves those instances in which an unreasonable person has control. Certainly, it is these very situations for which the rules were drafted in the first place. If everyone did what was reasonable, why do you need rules at all?

And yeah, the problem with the community is that you've too many busybodies trying to force people into playing their way. That's why I'm here petitioning for the protection of a mandated "hands off" approach to administration. With such a thing in place, everyone is free to play as they choose on the server that provides them with the lowest latency possible. If you don't like it, that's cool. Explain why though or put me on your ignore list. Don't tell me to cram it though. That I won't do.

[WarGimp]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Better reply than I was expectin dude.
Sorry for grumpin, but I'm gettin a little tired of certain elements of the community always callin everyone else down.

The reason I'm a fan of alowing servers to set up local rules is because they can use those rules to enhance certain elements of good pub play.

In a clan or comp match, yeah... no holds barred. Do what it takes to win. Period.

A good pub server is a different story, tho. There it should be about people having fun. Since you're mixing pros, noobs, and everyone in between, you need to back off the "win at all costs" stance. "No Base Rape" rules can help level the playing field a bit. "You Must Join a Squad" gives a particular server a player base that's more focused on squad level teamwork. "No Chopper capping" keeps the maps ground intensive.

Each of these rules is about enhancing certain aspects of gameplay that certain people enjoy. No, they won't apeal to everyone. Some people might not be able to handle a certain house rule at all. That's fine... there's no doubt a server out there that they would be happier to play on.

Just look at these boards. There's people constantly complaining about bunny hopping, noob tubing, plane whoring, base raping... etc etc. Then there's another crowd that never fails the chime in with a "STFU noob" in those complaint threads. Imagine, for a moment, that people were capabile of respecting house rules. People who hate certain aspects of the game could play on servers that ban those aspects. The people who believe all is fair in love and BF2 would be free to find servers with no such rules.

Does this make sense?

[{MoW} Brahma]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Wargimp I do believe you stated that perfectly. Those of us that have admined servers since the BF1942 days, we understand this. If we didn't, our clans would no longer be around becuase no one would want to play on the servers that the clans rent.

[WarGimp]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Thanks. I to try to keep up on what's really going on.

I forgot to mention something though.
While I'm an avocat of letting admins run house rules, I'm also very glad that there is a set of standards that they can refer to to keep things under control. The fact that these standards are being managed in a flexible and adapatble way that reacts to community demands amazes me. It's a perty big suport outlay for EA and kinda flys in the face of their reputation.

[maranello]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Good topic, but keep it non-personal please.

Thanks,

Maranello

[« R²» HKS]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Better reply than I was expectin dude.
Sorry for grumpin, but I'm gettin a little tired of certain elements of the community always callin everyone else down.

The reason I'm a fan of alowing servers to set up local rules is because they can use those rules to enhance certain elements of good pub play.

In a clan or comp match, yeah... no holds barred. Do what it takes to win. Period.

A good pub server is a different story, tho. There it should be about people having fun. Since you're mixing pros, noobs, and everyone in between, you need to back off the "win at all costs" stance. "No Base Rape" rules can help level the playing field a bit. "You Must Join a Squad" gives a particular server a player base that's more focused on squad level teamwork. "No Chopper capping" keeps the maps ground intensive.

Each of these rules is about enhancing certain aspects of gameplay that certain people enjoy. No, they won't apeal to everyone. Some people might not be able to handle a certain house rule at all. That's fine... there's no doubt a server out there that they would be happier to play on.

Just look at these boards. There's people constantly complaining about bunny hopping, noob tubing, plane whoring, base raping... etc etc. Then there's another crowd that never fails the chime in with a "STFU noob" in those complaint threads. Imagine, for a moment, that people were capabile of respecting house rules. People who hate certain aspects of the game could play on servers that ban those aspects. The people who believe all is fair in love and BF2 would be free to find servers with no such rules.

Does this make sense?

This just says it all for me. Nice post as usual Gimpy!

[BigBadBob]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

I still don't understand why a commander SHOULD be allowed to fly. Most people don't seem to have the skill to be a decent commander or pilot, much less at the same damn time.

If the commadner is in a jet, he don't have time to open the commander screen, look at the map, click to place UAV/supplies/arty and not crash and avoid enemy fire and help teammates on the ground.

It's ****ing impossible. I can see maybe, MAYBE, letting a commander be on foot or in a fast mover. But not in a tank, or any flying vehicle. You can't do both at the same time effectvely. And commanders that want to play and not command at all, don't really help their team do they?

[Auto-ER-]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

I still don't understand why a commander SHOULD be allowed to fly. Most people don't seem to have the skill to be a decent commander or pilot, much less at the same damn time.

If the commadner is in a jet, he don't have time to open the commander screen, look at the map, click to place UAV/supplies/arty and not crash and avoid enemy fire and help teammates on the ground.

It's ****ing impossible. I can see maybe, MAYBE, letting a commander be on foot or in a fast mover. But not in a tank, or any flying vehicle. You can't do both at the same time effectvely. And commanders that want to play and not command at all, don't really help their team do they?

Copy pasted from the ROE, five seconds ago....

§2.3 You may not deliberately hinder your own team or acting in such as way as to cause team mates unavoidable deaths or team losses.

• §Commander flying or in a vehicle instead of commanding
• §Destruction of friendly vehicles
• § Excessive team killing
• § Team switching to gain medals or awards

Though I must admit, I was playing a round once, and there was no commander, I took commander, and just happened to note that no one was using our planes, I typed that there were planes in the hangers, a few minutes later they were parked there and guess who was coming to get them? Not our team. So I killed a couple would be theives, and proceeded to jump in a plane. I cruised to a high alttitude and you can, open teh screen, scan, drop UAV/arty/supplies, switch back and throttle up, now you also have a good idea where to bomb, and if you are coodinated and have a concept of commanding, you can fly and command. I have also had good rounds as commander in a tank. I always ask if someone want it, but I'll be damned if I am going to let OUR tank roll up and kill OUR guys, because no one wanted to use it, just because someone doesn't think that someone else can't do two things at once.

[SaladFork]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

Once again, please read the entire RoE before commenting. Section 2 rules are NOT required rules for all privately owned ranked servers. They are enforced on BF2RS administrated servers, and are no more than suggestions when it comes to privately owned ranked servers.

If you are the admin of a privately owned ranked server, it is perfectly fine for you not to include any rules from section 2. They are also there to serve as an example of what types of rules would be acceptable.

There were many debates going on regarding whether kicking commanders in vehicles would be allowed or not. This specifies that admins MAY kick commanders in vehicles if they wish, for hindering their team.

~Salad

[EsP-Grandpa]

Re: BF2RS RoE Updated - Server Admins READ

There is always gonna be gray area, and it's very rare that anyone with a drop of common sense will run in to them.

Here's what's not allowed:
- Doing things that have no point at all beyond boosting your own score.
- Flat-out barring everyday players from ever using specific kits, weapons, or vehicles.

Here's what's allowed:
- Everything else.


If you're not stat padding and you're not making rules like "no grenade launchers" or "no APCs" or "no artillery" or "no medics" then you don't even need to THINK about the ROE.

I guess it depends on who you are writing the ROE for. Are you writing the rules for “anyone with a drop of common sense” or are you writing the rules for the a$$hat power hungry, griefer, “I’ll do what ever I want to” admin/clan?

If the rules are for the first; let’s just say “don’t cheat” and that will do.

If the rules are for the latter (which I am under the assumption they are), then they need to be CLEAR AND CONSISTENT.

You don’t need rules for honest players “with a drop of common sense”.

I really fail to understand what the resistance is to making the rules clear. Is there some kind of hidden agenda going on here?

Change section 1.5 to:

§1.5 Server administrators may not explicitly or implicitly (by actions) enforce restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server, Server administrators CAN place limits how a weapon or asset is used.

If that is “what is meant”, then SAY IT. What is the problem with saying what you mean?