Friluftshund, A spec ops and support guy staying in an uncappable base for any length of time could be considered a prolonged attack. I disagree however. They are doing their job of denying the enemy the use of their tools. And if they kill an engineer or two while moving to repair those tools or even while they are reparing them, then they are doing their job. Personally as commander I love seeing a squad of 2 with a spec ops and a support guy. I make the assumption that they are going for commander's toys and will try to help them get there to blow them up. The same goes for the lonewolf eng or single person eng squad in my base who repairs and protects my stuff.
Topic closed
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Rules of Engagment
Hm... You arn't accusing me of carping many do...DSRTurtle wrote:
Friluftshund, A spec ops and support guy staying in an uncappable base for any length of time could be considered a prolonged attack. I disagree however. They are doing their job of denying the enemy the use of their tools. And if they kill an engineer or two while moving to repair those tools or even while they are reparing them, then they are doing their job. Personally as commander I love seeing a squad of 2 with a spec ops and a support guy. I make the assumption that they are going for commander's toys and will try to help them get there to blow them up. The same goes for the lonewolf eng or single person eng squad in my base who repairs and protects my stuff.
I'll say, in response, that you will have to define what constitutes an attack... If you arn't shooting at the enemy, I would say that you are infact not attacking and therefore could stay in the un-capable base indefinetly..
(This would, incidently, be a great way for spotters to help commander in directing his troops if they could stay hidden in the base and report outgoing units.)
Other than that. I also believe there is a reason why commander-tools are placed away from the un-cap flag in many maps. It is so that you can destroy them without actually entering the base.
Killing engies might or might not be legal - i guess it would come down to an imaginary boundary separating them from "safety" within the base, and free-for-all outside the base..
And before someone says: "it's war, why should we stop and pick our teeth?!" i say: it isn't war, it's a game, and the objective of the game is for as many people as possible to have to most amount of fun
Interesting, when I go to that page I do not see the line "Engineers repairing the Blackhawk and giving supplies while C4 Chunking". Perhaps it has been changed by the time I read it?
As for "§1.4 Server administrators may not change any game settings defined as standard for ranked servers (ticket ratios, server password, round time, etc.)" these settings are locked by default using the BF2CC interface - but they could be modified if someone had access to the config files. Our ranked server provider does not allow us access to the files four our ranked server.
As for "§1.4 Server administrators may not change any game settings defined as standard for ranked servers (ticket ratios, server password, round time, etc.)" these settings are locked by default using the BF2CC interface - but they could be modified if someone had access to the config files. Our ranked server provider does not allow us access to the files four our ranked server.
i dont see anything about friendly fire seems to m e that not being able to tk would give a scoring advantage. is turning ff off legal??
If a commander can sit in the copilot's seat, it is still possible to use the Laser Guided Missiles and be a successful commander, and as such, it is not a waste of resources. The pilot can still bomb/attack opposing air threats independent of the copilot. However, if the commander uses the primary seat (pilot, tank driver), then they can't fly/command without diminished capacity in either role (commander/pilot), it also makes it hard for the copilot to do their job.IndianScout wrote:
§Commander flying or in a vehicle instead of commanding
So if a commander neglects their duties and only wants the 2x for a win, then it should be illegal. But if the commander takes a secondary support role and missiles inbetween UAVs, scans, supply drops, and artillery attacks, it could be discouraged, but not outlawed.
Commander's 2x score for the win is only based on command points. By neglecting their duties they more often than not ensure that the team will lose. I have a very big problem with commanders flying or in the gunner's seat or driving a vehicle. That is they can not devote their full attention to commanding. I have the same problem with squad leaders in single seat jets. It seems to me that they are more interested in squad leader time than helping the team/squad accomplish the missions needed to win. On small player servers I recognize the need for commanders to fight, which is I why I usually don't play on them. That being said, I also see the need for a commander to be able to enter a vehicle to drive from arty piece to arty piece to uav trailer to repair them. It's a lot faster than dropping a supply crate on each one. In small player servers the commander defending the "main" base as an engineer does make sense, if he has the mobility of a vehicle. No he doesn't need to be tying up a tank to do that.
Allowing clan/private servers to artificially change the game to suit them is wrong. In no way should clan/private servers be allowed to have different rules on their servers. The same rules should apply to all servers, official or not. The only time this should be allowed is on unranked servers. Allowing these rules adds to confusion on what is allowed on servers, the ROE should be there to remove this confusion not add to it.3 LOCAL (PRIVATELY RENTED) RANKED SERVER RULES MODIFICATIONS
These are rules that are not enforced upon in EA’s public ranked servers but may be modified in privately rented ranked servers. These rules are decided by clan administrators for those servers and as long as they do not contradict any global rules enforced by EA are considered valid for those servers.
This would include but not limited to:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Prolonged or sustained attacks on main (uncapturable) bases (i.e. spawncamping).
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Impersonating clan members.
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
§ Clans may change or customise rules, provided they don’t violate the above ROE rules.
Besides you recieve the same amount of points playing on a clan/private server as you would on an official one so I suppose you could class allowing admins to make up rules as a form of statpadding.
Excessive teamkilling is the only one there I can honestly respect, commanders flying vehicles are annoying when they can't do it, but what about those who can and can do it well? Destruction of friendly vehicles rule would be very hard to maintain and should rely on the situation.§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
Say for instance your team-mate dives out a tank, abandoning it and several enemies are running towards to steal it, would it be wrong to blow up the tank before they get to it? Or maybe it's your tank and you're not an engineer or there are no supply crates around, you blow up the tank yourself and take the next one as it spawns. The admin on the server however just sees that you just blew up one of the teams vehicles. This could be a hard rule to really distinguish whether it's purposely for hindering or tactical use.
Just my 2 pence worth, I might add another 2p later but for now, that's all you're getting fuckers.
First let me say it here so everyone knows what I'm doing in their base so I don't get kicked when your UAV trailer turns yellow. I don't attack bases, you can have your base, keep it. I target strategic and tactical assets and anyone protecting those assets or trying to kill me.
I just don't get it... restricting non-cap base attacks??? This is not fair and in no way balanced and surely can and is being exploited on some servers. How can EA condone game design exploitation? Or am I imagining things and giving too much credit to the game designers? (whom I admire for the playability of this gaming environment).
Not all maps have non-cap bases for both teams. What game balance compensation is given to the team who hasn't any non-cap bases? more players? more tanks? Jets? Not that I have seen yet. I will tell you what I have seen....(you knew this was coming)
A clan server with non-cap rules (ex: Kubra) where it's just fine for the clan, who always seems to be on USMC side, to attack the Intake all day long but when we get up in their face and start knocking out their arty/UAV/Sat, stealing tanks and etc we get warned that someone will point their AdminGodKill weapon at us, and someone can get kicked for this??? What an infantile load.
Let's add some history for a comparison of this obsurd notion. 30-40 yrs ago US was a late-comer into a South East Asian conflict fighting an enemy who had "non-cap" bases. Besides the good people on both sides, by every other comparision of equipment, logistics etc US was massively far superior...but couldn't convince the enemy to quit. The US finally came home and a couple yrs later the country fell.
That is how lopsided the non-cap concepts are. The richest and one of the 2 world powers at the time could not stop the enemy country who at the end of the war was the 3rd poorest nation in the world. Thank God that's all over now. It doesn't matter why the US placed restrictions on her armies, what matters for comparison sake is the unequal effect the restrictions had.
BF2 should be a free fire zone - BF2 is better than other FPS games. It does not fit the one dimensional framework of other FPS games. This is a multi-level FPS/RPG/RTS hybrid cooperative team-based game. There is no such thing as spawn camping, base raping, blah blah blah. These are terms for lesser games and appropriately so.
if you can't stand the heat go to WoW or play Sim City.
I just don't get it... restricting non-cap base attacks??? This is not fair and in no way balanced and surely can and is being exploited on some servers. How can EA condone game design exploitation? Or am I imagining things and giving too much credit to the game designers? (whom I admire for the playability of this gaming environment).
Not all maps have non-cap bases for both teams. What game balance compensation is given to the team who hasn't any non-cap bases? more players? more tanks? Jets? Not that I have seen yet. I will tell you what I have seen....(you knew this was coming)
A clan server with non-cap rules (ex: Kubra) where it's just fine for the clan, who always seems to be on USMC side, to attack the Intake all day long but when we get up in their face and start knocking out their arty/UAV/Sat, stealing tanks and etc we get warned that someone will point their AdminGodKill weapon at us, and someone can get kicked for this??? What an infantile load.
Let's add some history for a comparison of this obsurd notion. 30-40 yrs ago US was a late-comer into a South East Asian conflict fighting an enemy who had "non-cap" bases. Besides the good people on both sides, by every other comparision of equipment, logistics etc US was massively far superior...but couldn't convince the enemy to quit. The US finally came home and a couple yrs later the country fell.
That is how lopsided the non-cap concepts are. The richest and one of the 2 world powers at the time could not stop the enemy country who at the end of the war was the 3rd poorest nation in the world. Thank God that's all over now. It doesn't matter why the US placed restrictions on her armies, what matters for comparison sake is the unequal effect the restrictions had.
BF2 should be a free fire zone - BF2 is better than other FPS games. It does not fit the one dimensional framework of other FPS games. This is a multi-level FPS/RPG/RTS hybrid cooperative team-based game. There is no such thing as spawn camping, base raping, blah blah blah. These are terms for lesser games and appropriately so.
if you can't stand the heat go to WoW or play Sim City.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-02-12 21:17:52)
Wasn't there something about "online experience may change..." ? I think that is the disclaimer to modify rules after the fact.72Wolf- wrote:
The problem here, is that the "rules" are changing electronically, and do not reflect those agreed to at install time. I purchased a game that was sold for its online play benefits including ranking. Should the "rules" interfere with the benefits as advertised, this present a bit of a legal problem.IndianScout wrote:
you know personally I dont care if you like the rules or not, if you cant live by them, go play checkers..
end of story..
I can see Indian is workin his ass off. We're with ya man even if we disagree on the minutia. Most of us want a good game and more fun with less hassle I a bet that includes admins.
What is really going on here is trying to use social engineering (ROE) to patch a lack of control over disparate playing skills which could effect popularity and sales. Its not malicious. Please just go make another patch and don't make it so hard to keep track of widely varied and inconsistantly enforced 'rules'.
If you don't want attacks on non-cap the add a "Limit of Advance" tool in the game which will filter any or all kits from the opposing sides non-cap bases. The line will be visible so people can see it in their minimap and know who may cross. Also enforce a dual non-cap requirement if a non-cap restriction is desired. Two non-caps or none.
Use a "Proximity to Enemy" calculation to determine justification. This goes for TKs and anything like it. I had hundreds of hours of training in investigation techniques and 1000s of hours of practical experience and you can't tell me that an in-game 10 second admin review of a friendly vehicle destruction will result in a solid decision.
Don't tell commander's what they can and can't ride or drive. There are far too many times (and everyone knows I am against command pilots) far to many times that as commander I need to grab a vehicle to secure something because I can't get help fast enough. So instead set a time limit on command in vehicle based on # of player son the team, proximity to enemy action, and frequency of failed kick votes.
Don't dictate tactics or task organization using the ROE.
Don't let admins "investigate" and "judge" during games they are participating in!!!! This is known as a conflict of interest and it is instinctively abhorant to people used to rule of law. Let the game programming do it.
If you must let clans run their own ranked servers with varied rules that change game balance then run a separate stats database for the clan server reults and one for EA official.
Don't make a rule that you can't enforce. Don't enforce a rules infraction you can't witness. Don't be naive to believe that admins will be good and ethical on all servers. The assumptions of education, life experiences and ethics should not be that everyone wants to play nice. Most want to play nice but you get that 20% who will run you if you let them.
Don't get discouraged and....above all:
DO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!
Transport heli rule. Can I say again how stupid this rule is. "Using a transport heli to take flags" and? your problem is? Put it this way, if the apposing team cannot defend their captured flags then they need to learn how to play. If the whole team are spawning at the front line all the time and not thinking about defence then they will more than likely lose. Especially if a good heli pilot and crew are flying flag to flag.
I do sometimes wait at a flag depending how the game is going. Next thing you know a blackhawk appears with 3 people inside. I then jump in a jeep and unload on the mofo with the .50. A good pilot will turn around for repairs. A noob pilot will die muahhahahaha!!!!!
I do sometimes wait at a flag depending how the game is going. Next thing you know a blackhawk appears with 3 people inside. I then jump in a jeep and unload on the mofo with the .50. A good pilot will turn around for repairs. A noob pilot will die muahhahahaha!!!!!
we have had the discussion about antering the uncap for ages. Some will allow it in general, others only for destroying enemy assets, some will generally outlaw it.
My point in this discussion has always been that in BF2 there is no such thing as "hide". Provided all equipment is operational, the enemy commander always has full view of the battlefield and every unit moving on it. And if a Spec Ops is able to enter the enemy uncap to destroy commander assets, it is only due to the inability of that commander to protect said assets. If the Spec Ops is on foot, it will take him forever to even reach the uncap. One scan will reveil his position and the commander can either assign a squad ( or part of a squad ) to deal with him or take care of the threat himself ( by choosing an appropriate kit ).
Accordingly, I think entering the enemy uncap on foot to attack assets or mine/steal vehicles should be allowed. Why should I be punished for the enemy commander's failure to do his job right ?
I have always believed that BF2 should be about which team is better at playing the game / teamwork and not which team is better at exploiting game mechanics. One prerequesition for that is of course a good game code ( which EA is adressing through various patches ), but the other is the willingness of players to follow that principle.
Play the game as it was intended to be played.
"Well, how do I know how it was intended to be played" I hear you ask...
now you know.
My point in this discussion has always been that in BF2 there is no such thing as "hide". Provided all equipment is operational, the enemy commander always has full view of the battlefield and every unit moving on it. And if a Spec Ops is able to enter the enemy uncap to destroy commander assets, it is only due to the inability of that commander to protect said assets. If the Spec Ops is on foot, it will take him forever to even reach the uncap. One scan will reveil his position and the commander can either assign a squad ( or part of a squad ) to deal with him or take care of the threat himself ( by choosing an appropriate kit ).
Accordingly, I think entering the enemy uncap on foot to attack assets or mine/steal vehicles should be allowed. Why should I be punished for the enemy commander's failure to do his job right ?
I have always believed that BF2 should be about which team is better at playing the game / teamwork and not which team is better at exploiting game mechanics. One prerequesition for that is of course a good game code ( which EA is adressing through various patches ), but the other is the willingness of players to follow that principle.
Play the game as it was intended to be played.
"Well, how do I know how it was intended to be played" I hear you ask...
now you know.
Thank You. You have so eloquintly stated the need for the balance between offense and defense. Everyone is so concerned about winning that they think they have to be on the offensive all the time. Actually that is not true. You must have a balance of offense and defense. I know playing an engineer and guarding your commander's assets is boring and you don't get a lot of points. But if you do it well, you can help your team in many ways that unfortunately aren't compensated by points, but is compensated with the win.B.Schuss wrote:
My point in this discussion has always been that in BF2 there is no such thing as "hide". Provided all equipment is operational, the enemy commander always has full view of the battlefield and every unit moving on it. And if a Spec Ops is able to enter the enemy uncap to destroy commander assets, it is only due to the inability of that commander to protect said assets. If the Spec Ops is on foot, it will take him forever to even reach the uncap. One scan will reveil his position and the commander can either assign a squad ( or part of a squad ) to deal with him or take care of the threat himself ( by choosing an appropriate kit ).
Accordingly, I think entering the enemy uncap on foot to attack assets or mine/steal vehicles should be allowed. Why should I be punished for the enemy commander's failure to do his job right ?
Indian, The RoE doesn't say anything about the placement of explosives. If a private ranked server puts restrictions on the placement of explosives, is this a violation of the RoE?
In truth i find it sad that any server has to place rules up on how combat will be conducted! I hear so many people comlaining that OH the game isn't real enofe or that they neeed to make this more real.. Well folks here is a truth of war. 1. There are no rules in a fire fight! 2. The winner is the guy who lives to go home that night! Thats the ultimate truth of war. Don't belive me! As someone that just came back from overseas and was in combat. They will tell you when the rounds are flying by thier heads The last thing they are going to do is look in a book and see what they can and can't do in a fight! Reality of war is that! This is a game and if someone does somthing like plant C4 at a flag or fixes a blackhawk in flight and you don't like it!! Waaaaa! I don't like getting killed in the game but don't hear me bitch!! So grow up and shut up!
Indian Scout,
There is still a fundamental flaw in the ROE as I understand they are now.
I have a problem understanding how rules on private servers like:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
Do not violate the rules that ALL RANKED SERVERS must follow:
§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 (e.g. knives only, aircraft prohibited except for clan members, etc.)
• § Infantry only Servers
• § Kicking Players who use vehicles or aircraft
• § Limiting certain vehicles or aircraft for non clan members
Can I get some clarification on this?
How is limiting the use of artillery and airplanes (Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited) NOT a “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
How is Limiting the use of a Blackhawk NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”
How is disallowing C4 on Jeeps NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
It does not make sense.
Either Change section 1.5 or change the examples in Section 3. You can’t have both.
There is still a fundamental flaw in the ROE as I understand they are now.
I have a problem understanding how rules on private servers like:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
Do not violate the rules that ALL RANKED SERVERS must follow:
§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 (e.g. knives only, aircraft prohibited except for clan members, etc.)
• § Infantry only Servers
• § Kicking Players who use vehicles or aircraft
• § Limiting certain vehicles or aircraft for non clan members
Can I get some clarification on this?
How is limiting the use of artillery and airplanes (Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited) NOT a “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
How is Limiting the use of a Blackhawk NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”
How is disallowing C4 on Jeeps NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
It does not make sense.
Either Change section 1.5 or change the examples in Section 3. You can’t have both.
actually you can..EsP-Grandpa wrote:
Indian Scout,
There is still a fundamental flaw in the ROE as I understand they are now.
I have a problem understanding how rules on private servers like:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
Do not violate the rules that ALL RANKED SERVERS must follow:
§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 (e.g. knives only, aircraft prohibited except for clan members, etc.)
• § Infantry only Servers
• § Kicking Players who use vehicles or aircraft
• § Limiting certain vehicles or aircraft for non clan members
Can I get some clarification on this?
How is limiting the use of artillery and airplanes (Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited) NOT a “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
How is Limiting the use of a Blackhawk NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”
How is disallowing C4 on Jeeps NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
It does not make sense.
Either Change section 1.5 or change the examples in Section 3. You can’t have both.
they wanted to give the clan ranked server some latitude in setting their server rules..
and gave us a list of certain things that "could" be modified in their server rules..
The rules from the Public ranked servers may not be exactly the same as the clan ranked..,
in fact I will put a note at the bottom of the ROE that states this.
hopefull this will clear up this issue...
Does not clear it up at all. The section I am refering to, Section 1, is the section that covers "rules that all administrators and players using ranked servers". I take this to mean all ranked servers, EA Official ranked servers OR privately owned servers.IndianScout wrote:
actually you can..EsP-Grandpa wrote:
Indian Scout,
There is still a fundamental flaw in the ROE as I understand they are now.
I have a problem understanding how rules on private servers like:
§ Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited.
§ Using the Transport Helicopters to take flags (Blackhawk whoring or flag hopping).
§ Using C4 on jeeps, or other fast moving vehicles to take out other vehicles.
Do not violate the rules that ALL RANKED SERVERS must follow:
§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 (e.g. knives only, aircraft prohibited except for clan members, etc.)
• § Infantry only Servers
• § Kicking Players who use vehicles or aircraft
• § Limiting certain vehicles or aircraft for non clan members
Can I get some clarification on this?
How is limiting the use of artillery and airplanes (Artillery fire or bombing runs on main (uncapturable) bases may be prohibited) NOT a “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
How is Limiting the use of a Blackhawk NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”
How is disallowing C4 on Jeeps NOT “restrictions on vehicles or weapons that players can use while on your server”?
It does not make sense.
Either Change section 1.5 or change the examples in Section 3. You can’t have both.
they wanted to give the clan ranked server some latitude in setting their server rules..
and gave us a list of certain things that "could" be modified in their server rules..
The rules from the Public ranked servers may not be exactly the same as the clan ranked..,
in fact I will put a note at the bottom of the ROE that states this.
hopefull this will clear up this issue...
Are you saying that Section 1 is not supposed to apply to "all administrators and players using ranked servers"? Is this Section 1.5 rule just for EA Servers? If so, move it to Section 2.
Last edited by EsP-Grandpa (2006-02-13 11:19:23)
some of these rules make no sense
In the end - section 3 doesn't need to be there at all... Just say that "other than these rules - anything goes!"
i mean - what if a clan put up a: "no arty on un-caps!" and someone did exactly that, put arty on uncap. What will bf2rankedservers.com do about it? can you do anything about it?
i mean - what if a clan put up a: "no arty on un-caps!" and someone did exactly that, put arty on uncap. What will bf2rankedservers.com do about it? can you do anything about it?
It may have been covered but how does an individual.. or a large company go about getting a registered server up.
I have some friends that have servers that want them registered but aren't going to pay to rent one since they have their own..
Also.. how would a corporation.. Such as.. one of Comcast's competitors go about setting up some registered servers.. Yes I can ready and follow the directions for software but how does one get it registered with EA?
I have some friends that have servers that want them registered but aren't going to pay to rent one since they have their own..
Also.. how would a corporation.. Such as.. one of Comcast's competitors go about setting up some registered servers.. Yes I can ready and follow the directions for software but how does one get it registered with EA?
First off let me say, that a set of rules is fine, But to go and Change these rules AFTER PRIVATE SERVERS have Already Agreed to some Other terms(and i dont think That they have even Agreed to them Anyways) Is Highly Illegal. EA Can get away with this In THERE OWN Official Servers, But If a Clan who has Privately funded a ranked server Gets Shut down or there Scores reset for a Violation of This socalled OFFICIAL Set of rules, EA Might be in for a surprise. Alot of clans Out there That Have PAID For a Game(agreeed to Terms Already) and Have PAID for a Ranked server, Could and would probably have enough funds between them to File suit against EA For a Breach of contract on there part. One Point that EA could face a suit on is there Min requirements for the game, Then patching Said game and makeing it useless to someone who Met the requirements BEFORE the patch.(ATI 8500-9250 owners) Also Forceing them to Upgrade there Hardware(that was enough BEFORE the patch), To be able to continue to play a game they were playing BEFORE the patch, Is Highly Illegal. So If we really want to get into the nuts and bolts of These ROE, I Can See EA on the recieving end of a boat load of lawsuits Shortly.
Im sorry But you DONT Change the rules In midstream After the fact. Not ALL Clans are made up of Socalled UBERGEEKS that EA can Push around. Some Very Highly respected clans are clans with members in there 40,s who ALSO Hold Degrees in Other fields, Includeing LAW. As Long as a servers Rules dont Prohibit A Player from Moveing and shooting his weapon, This whole ROE for Privately funded servers is moot and invalid.
I Agree 100% on most of these Rules in this ROE, Buy EA Has to step back from there "GODLIKE" Attitude, Or they could very well face suits Like the Mighty Microsoft is faceing now.
Harry
Im sorry But you DONT Change the rules In midstream After the fact. Not ALL Clans are made up of Socalled UBERGEEKS that EA can Push around. Some Very Highly respected clans are clans with members in there 40,s who ALSO Hold Degrees in Other fields, Includeing LAW. As Long as a servers Rules dont Prohibit A Player from Moveing and shooting his weapon, This whole ROE for Privately funded servers is moot and invalid.
I Agree 100% on most of these Rules in this ROE, Buy EA Has to step back from there "GODLIKE" Attitude, Or they could very well face suits Like the Mighty Microsoft is faceing now.
Harry
Back off man! Jeez you seem to have this one well thought-out.. including any and all sporadic capital letters Which arn't Supposed To Be There - I't Looks Stupid......<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
First off let me say, that a set of rules is fine, But to go and Change these rules AFTER PRIVATE SERVERS have Already Agreed to some Other terms(and i dont think That they have even Agreed to them Anyways) Is Highly Illegal. EA Can get away with this In THERE OWN Official Servers, But If a Clan who has Privately funded a ranked server Gets Shut down or there Scores reset for a Violation of This socalled OFFICIAL Set of rules, EA Might be in for a surprise. Alot of clans Out there That Have PAID For a Game(agreeed to Terms Already) and Have PAID for a Ranked server, Could and would probably have enough funds between them to File suit against EA For a Breach of contract on there part. One Point that EA could face a suit on is there Min requirements for the game, Then patching Said game and makeing it useless to someone who Met the requirements BEFORE the patch.(ATI 8500-9250 owners) Also Forceing them to Upgrade there Hardware(that was enough BEFORE the patch), To be able to continue to play a game they were playing BEFORE the patch, Is Highly Illegal. So If we really want to get into the nuts and bolts of These ROE, I Can See EA on the recieving end of a boat load of lawsuits Shortly.
Im sorry But you DONT Change the rules In midstream After the fact. Not ALL Clans are made up of Socalled UBERGEEKS that EA can Push around. Some Very Highly respected clans are clans with members in there 40,s who ALSO Hold Degrees in Other fields, Includeing LAW. As Long as a servers Rules dont Prohibit A Player from Moveing and shooting his weapon, This whole ROE for Privately funded servers is moot and invalid.
I Agree 100% on most of these Rules in this ROE, Buy EA Has to step back from there "GODLIKE" Attitude, Or they could very well face suits Like the Mighty Microsoft is faceing now.
Harry
Are you 100% certain that there isn't a single line in any of the agreements "signed" by the private server-owners which include the words: "Agreement can be altered by EA..."???
Because it would be very strange if it doesn't! Having a ranked server isn't a right, it's a privilege...
And if EA gave a heads-up - server owners could probably terminate the agreement (but that would mean no ranked server)
And why do you make it sound as if the RoE isn't official? just because the CEO of EA didn't pen it himself??? If a third-party draws up a document and EA says it's official - well guess what!?! IT IS!!!
So sift through all the legal papers and be sure there arn't any "disclaimers" on EA's part before you jump around tossing lawsuit-threats around...
Your damn right its a privellidge, one that clans who want ranked servers have to pay a great deal of money for. They should have the right too have some control over their own server. If servers started getting closed down & stat reset on too big a scale, most privately owned servers would probably close & clans would switch too other games.
Probably wouldnt make hosting companies very happy with EA, as they had to pay for te right to host & sell ranked servers too the public.
I agree we need ROE, but I dont think it can afford to be so strict or conflicting on privately run servers.
Probably wouldnt make hosting companies very happy with EA, as they had to pay for te right to host & sell ranked servers too the public.
I agree we need ROE, but I dont think it can afford to be so strict or conflicting on privately run servers.
Fuck BF2RS and thier rules, I'll play how I want, when I want and where I want. I didn't pay 50 bucks for a video game just so some fat ass server admin could tell me how or how not to play.
I got a fat chode you bastards can suck on.
I got a fat chode you bastards can suck on.
Topic closed
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Rules of Engagment