Honest question to the community

[phookat]

Originally posted by hitech
Virgil: I do not belive that is a resonable question. I view it as the same type  question: " When did you stop beeting your wife"

I agree.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The first asks are you willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier.

Are you?

[Vad]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him,  thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?

No, I don't feel so.

And regarding "more enjoyable for all". It is obviously not more enjoyable for all, otherwise you wouldn't see whining about P8 here. May be more important question is: "Is this patch more enjoyable for majority?" I don't know the answer on this question.

It is senseless to ask this here because only few percents of players on MA participate in this forum, and most of them are veterans. They can fly whatever they want with the same success, so this patch doesn't affect them much. Moreover, this patch actually helps them. It allows veterans to fly early war planes and have less competition from new players.

BTW, as you can see many junior members of this forum are against this patch.

I wonder what is the proportion of relatively new players to veterans on MA?

[kj714]

I'm with the people who say you pay for access to the arena.

[humble]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.

The way Zanth phrased the question, it stated a guarantee of improvement for everyone, which is not possible in that situation.

While there is nothing inherently wrong in acting in your own best interests, even if it imposes certain things on others (without actually causing real life harm), being dishonest with yourself about it is interesting.

It cuts both ways.

Your fishing way in the deepend here, the problem is in your original phrasing not anyones response to it...

[Sikboy]

Yes. Easily. Without a doubt.

-Sik

[Herr Milde]

Virgil,

My general reaction to your question is that would seem immoral to answer yes to your question in the simple context of enhancing your own enjoyment at the cost of diminishing someone elses, as you put it. Hitech was quick to point this out.

However, you seem to be a reasonable guy, and since you say you did the best you could do, I will help you rephrase your question to be less of a "wife beating question". I understand that what you really meant to say was:

"In the interest of balancing adversaries, do you mind if some paying customers are inconvenienced by having to switch to another country in order to enjoy a full plane selection?"

My answer would be "no".

Here is my "wife beating question" to you Virgil:

In the interest of fairness to paying customers, would you insist on the right to retain your choice of country and demand a full planeset although you know full well that many paying customers would suffer the agony of an unbalanced arena? Yes or No.

It's not fair question, Virgil, so you don't have to answer.

Just thought I'd help a little by giving an example. Sometimes its hard to see the other side, but that's what makes things fun!

Cheers,

RitteR

[Crashy]

Originally posted by Zanth
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to control access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc in order to make the game more enjoyable for all?


yes

ditto....

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I have not nor am I insisting on having access to all non perk planes. I did say that I did not think restricting peoples access to the planes they enjoyed flying was a good idea. But I said a couple of days or so ago that I agreed that SOMETHING needed to be done, and that while I did not actually agree with what was done, I could accept it and deal with it.

No, I do not want anyone else's enjoyment hampered in order to enhance mine. I do not like artificially leveling a field.

I'd rather get my tail shot off and have to figure out how to stop it than have someone else fix it for me.

Personally, I wil not go looking for a fight I can't win anymore than I'll look for a fight I can't lose.  I like a good fight.

The assumption that most players on the Rook side actually want to have their boot on the throat of the Knights or Bishops 24/7 is not necessarily true. cetainly there are those that do, as there are those who are totally loyal to the Knights or Bishops who would like to have their boots on the throats of the other countries. That is human nature, and last I looked, the game was played by humans.

As expected, this thread has been about people rationalizing their position, instead of directly answering the question.

example by player "x": Yes, I feel it is okay to keep someone else from flying a plane with an ENY of 5 because I enjoy a plane with an ENY of 40.

That was actually an honest answer to the question. It was not wrong. The problem is that people automatically assumed there was a right and wrong answer, and there was not.

I was actually looking to see how many players would honestly say that they felt it was okay to restrict someone else in order to allow that player to have more fun. But at least 80% who would like to answer yes, felt it was necessary to rationalize it.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:

Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to tho se things you've taken from him,  thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?

hitech is right, there is extreme bias in the way the question is posed

No access to game features/vehicles/etc is being removed from anybody at any time.

You can be loyal to your country, you can be loyal to your plane, but at certain times there are certain planes where you can't simultaneously be loyal to both.

Seems reasonable to me.

[NUTTZ]

The day I started carroting her, and once in awhile I potato her.

NUTTZ

Originally posted by hitech
snipped... " When did you stop beeting your wife"


HiTech

[Goobman]

I dont believe HTC should be promoting country hopping and disloyalty by limiting aircraft. "Coercing" people to make a decision they wouldnt normally make, tends to upset alot of players (myself included). The game would have eventually fixed itself if left alone, just as it has in the past.

On another note, I flew Bishop for a long while until my squad moved to the Rooks. The only night that Rooks have an extreme numbers advantage is Sunday night (RJO). Even when I flew as Bish I never really saw this as a problem. We would usually buckle up, up from a base that wasnt under attack and fight back. To be truthful the biggest gripe in the arena about Rooks wasnt their numbers, it was always about their flying at ungodly alts (is that going to be dealt with also with arena changes?).

Final point: The ENY Limiter decision, I feel, wasnt thought through long enough and other viable options looked at before it was placed into the game. Personally I think if the last 50 Resets info was looked at, you probably wouldnt find a huge disparity between the winners of the "War" (yes it is a "war", the game says so itself). And war is not even nor fair, so if your "side" is losing DO something about it constructively within the fight not whine "woe is me" and beg an outside influence to change the rules to benefit you and handicap others.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Herr Milde
Virgil,

My general reaction to your question is that would seem immoral to answer yes to your question in the simple context of enhancing your own enjoyment at the cost of diminishing someone elses, as you put it. Hitech was quick to point this out.

However, you seem to be a reasonable guy, and since you say you did the best you could do, I will help you rephrase your question to be less of a "wife beating question". I understand that what you really meant to say was:

"In the interest of balancing adversaries, do you mind if some paying customers are inconvenienced by having to switch to another country in order to enjoy a full plane selection?"

My answer would be "no".

Here is my "wife beating question" to you Virgil:

In the interest of fairness to paying customers, would you insist on the right to retain your choice of country and demand a full planeset although you know full well that many paying customers would suffer the agony of an unbalanced arena? Yes or No.

It's not fair question, Virgil, so you don't have to answer.

Just thought I'd help a little by giving an example. Sometimes its hard to see the other side, but that's what makes things fun!

Cheers,

RitteR

Your rephrasing of my question is not at all what I intended.

I'm not at all bothered by your question. It IS fair. If I could not answer it, I would not have asjked the one I did.

The minute you ask for another person to be handicapped for your sake, you better be able to answer the same question about yourself. So no, again, your question is no more unfair than mine was. It simply requires one to be willing to be honest.

The answer to your question is no, I would not do so for myself. I did not insist on it and I do not insist on it. Do I fly planes other than my normal ride more often now than before? Yes. Do I find it at times annoying? Yes. But then you can't get a P-38 on a carrier either. So it wasn't like an outrageous imposition on me. I already flew the Corsair when I wanted to go where the CV went. I added the P-47 BEFORE the current system. So the current system DOES NOT affect me as much as you might think. Despite being a Rook who normally flies a plane with an ENY of 15, and flies it poorly more often than not.

But I don't like it being forced on everyone. I'm simply one of those who will take my whoopin (and come back for more, again and again). If I can't take it, I'll go look for a more fair fight, or I'll take a break. Ask people I fly with. I usually only quit when I feel I have a personal issue keeping me from competing at all.

I don't want anything given to me, especially at the cost of someone else. It rubs me the wrong way. Goes against the way I was raised.


And I figure if I can't get enough people on my side to even things up, I might need to look in the mirror. If someone does not want to fly with me, I ask myself why. And I CAN be an prettythanghole, I freely admit it. I lose my temper, and sometimes I get angry and complain about being outnumbered, I'm at least partially human,(or maybe subhuman) with human faults and inadquacies.

[peregrin]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You edited the question to allow you to answer it a certain way. I'm looking for something else.

I'm sure you are looking for something else.  

I agree to submit to any and all rules applied fairly to all players.  Whether or not other players can enjoy the game under those rules is up to them.

--Peregrine.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Samiam
hitech is right, there is extreme bias in the way the question is posed

No access to game features/vehicles/etc is being removed from anybody at any time.

You can be loyal to your country, you can be loyal to your plane, but at certain times there are certain planes where you can't simultaneously be loyal to both.

Seems reasonable to me.

No, there was not extreme bias in the question. You either are comfortable with demanding, and willing to demand, that someone else be restricted or penalized at the cost of their enjoyment for your benefit, or you are not. It really is that simple.

If human nature makes you comfortable with it, you are no more or less than anyone else.

If you feel you can't be honest and answer with a yes if that is the way you feel because it makes you uncomfortable, that is okay too.