Why? If they spawn outside of the uncap then they spawn outside of the uncap. That's just something you have to take into account when you spawn in on a map where the jet is already in flight.
Rules on provocative uncap engagement?
- Thread starter pattynotoes
- Start date
Why? If they spawn outside of the uncap then they spawn outside of the uncap. That's just something you have to take into account when you spawn in on a map where the jet is already in flight.
It depends on the ultimate goal of the attack and whether the 'attacker' is a single entity or a coalition. If you look at Hamas' destruction following the October 7th attacks, the natural conclusion is that the attack was pointless and the attackers ended up losing. This is only if you consider Hamas the only attacking force against Israel. In reality, there's multiple countries and militias that are attacking Israel. Hamas' destruction isn't necessarily the end of the war against Israel, but certainly the end of the battle. They succeeded in drawing Israel into a wider conflict, putting them on the offensive and also hurting the country's public image and support in the process. At some point in the future, Israel's choice to act so aggressively may be a detriment to itself, though its impossible to say for sure. Also don't want to dive into a political discussion either.
If the ultimate goal of the uncap attack is to disable or disrupt the defending side, it (typically) ends up being successful. Of course, the attacking side usually goes into these battles with the understanding that they will not be leaving alive. The pilots of the 9/11 jets certainly died, and if you consider the pilots as the only attackers, they definitely lost. Al Qaeda, the group funding the attack, was eventually hit hard and mostly destroyed. However, the long-term goal of weakening the defender (United States) eventually came to fruition many years later. In the long-term, the attack had some level of success, although not immediately.
Desert storm is one of those rare immediately successful uncap attacks where both the short and long term goals of the attack were fulfilled early on. The attackers left with minimal losses and inflicted the damage as planned. That will never happen in battlefield 4 because there's no real permanence of the defending team's losses besides tickets. It could only be replicated if the entire attacking team's vehicles coordinated and committed to assaulting the defender uncap at the same time (statistically impossible)
Its also really difficult to accurately measure the success of an uncap attack and its effect on the rest of the battle. The most visually obvious benefit of uncap attacks is that it delays critical defending vehicles and personnel and buys a window of opportunity for the attacking side to capture more points. It's usually a 15-30 ticket difference. It helps the attackers as their personnel can capture key points without being constantly assaulted by heavy armor or enemy aircraft. The window of the advantage is typically the respawn time of the vehicles that were destroyed.
Last edited:
Stop using chatgpt.
This does not apply to jets... If I wait for some fool to spawn, for example, in hainan, and I abuse him in the air behind his base gagging him so he doesn't scream, he will come crying to the forum 100% sure, in maps where the spawn is the air you should wait for him to move far enough away, shoot, or go up enough, how much ? To the client's liking, but to do it immediately only generates drama, even more with the garbage of players that are in the server.
I'm not. That's how I type. I've been writing elaborately worded posts for years before chatgpt even became a thing. Either way there's no way to actually prove to you that I don't since you're already so convinced on your perspective. Does it actually matter either way? Running the essay into an 'ai writing detector' pulls up 100% human. You can tell i'm actually quite lazy typing because half of my post is run-on sentences and I overuse commas. I'm just trying to convey my point across with the most detail possible
Maybe the chatgpt age has generally lowered the standards of communication and you assume that anyone typing a lot or using big words is running it through some Ai service?
Last edited:
Firedoc
-bZ- Member
Grammarly has your statement at 70% AI input vs your assertion that it is 100% human.
1) I don't pay for grammarly because I don't use ai writing tools, I got my 'assertion' from the free ai writing detection tools
2) My statements are rife with personal subjective opinions that most Ai wouldn't even be allowed to produce. Also BF4-specific knowledge and reasoning that Ai wouldn't be privy to
3) At 70% it's still more likely that my statement is human-written than Ai generated
4) Why are we using AI to prove that i'm using AI? Doesn't that just undermine the whole 'ai bad' argument
5) Why am I on trial
Firedoc
-bZ- Member
!. Not only do I pay for Grammarly Pro, but the University where I am employed pays for another program that checks for academic plagiarism. Both programs were used, and a score was extrapolated to reach the conclusion given.
2. Apparently, you do know the ins and outs of AI and know of its shortcomings. At the same time, one can plug in specific knowledge for helpful AI interpretations.
3. Hypothetically, if the score was 30% then the conclusion would be more in favor of human than other.
4. No.
5. Mobius made an innocuous statement; you chose to come back and present an argument.
2. Apparently, you do know the ins and outs of AI and know of its shortcomings. At the same time, one can plug in specific knowledge for helpful AI interpretations.
3. Hypothetically, if the score was 30% then the conclusion would be more in favor of human than other.
4. No.
5. Mobius made an innocuous statement; you chose to come back and present an argument.
Checkmate logbolb.