Furballs vs Shedders: Developmental Perspective

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe there is any "community" enforcement available to ensure "acceptable standards of behavior".

By definition, Griefers strive to provide unacceptable standards of behavior. It is their raison d'etre; it's what gives them the feeling of success.

What options do you have? Squelch them? They relish the idea. Excoriate them on the BBS? More proof of their success, taken as a trophy.

...

I think the community can handle the corner cases ... like capturing FT and TT and hiding CV's.

But the porkage which goes on all the time has become ingrained into the game and requires changes in the MA to take away the "tools" and rewards that drive the antics.

As long as one player in a Tiffy or La-7 can disbale troops and ord at a base (or 2 or 3), or take down all FH at a base with a formation of Lancs, this stuff will never stop. It's a griefers paradase - they have multiple ways to screw things up for many, many people ... all the time.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think the community can handle the corner cases ... like capturing FT and TT and hiding CV's.

But the porkage which goes on all the time has become ingrained into the game and requires changes in the MA to take away the "tools" and rewards that drive the antics.

As long as one player in a Tiffy or La-7 can disbale troops and ord at a base (or 2 or 3), or take down all FH at a base with a formation of Lancs, this stuff will never stop. It's a griefers paradase - they have multiple ways to screw things up for many, many people ... all the time.

I like Ph's idea as a bandaid fix, just make everything at fields 3 times as 'hard' as it is now. It may not prevent griefing altogether, but it will take 3  times as many of them 3  times as long as it does now...

Zazen

[FiLtH]

Make a relaxed realism arena.  Make the full realism settings to blow stuff up alot higher. Maybe even keep Donut up in the full realism arena because its so popular. Maybe less people in the FR arena, but it would give a choice.

[Toad]

HT is NOT going to go for a "two arena" setup.

I'd bet the ranch on that one.

[Kev367th]

You'll never get away from the fact it is now a 'win the war' game.

Given that when FT map is up less than a 1/4 of each side seems to be there, I would say the overwhelming majority of people seem to play the 'win the war' side of things.

Now if FT is to be made uncapturable, I want -
The GV area -
Where VH's can't be destroyed.
Where eggs have no effect on GV's.

And that still wouldn't stop someone flying an IL2 in to strafe guys.

Will it happen, I doubt it, same goes for uncapturable FT.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Kev367th

Given that when FT map is up less than a 1/4 of each side seems to be there

I'd have to disagree there. Seems more like 2/3's to me. Add up the people actually fighting and then the 20 or 30 griefers trying to pork and/or capture it, at the very least it's 1/2. Of course when the map gets milkrun close to the point of reset alot leave FT to try to save it, maybe that's where your 1/4 comes from..

Zazen

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Simaril


I've noticed many others follow a similar trajectory, with or woithout the added attraction of GVs. I think many who get addicted and stick it out end up fighter guys, though some just like buffing/GVs for their own sake.

Probably snipped a bit too much but I think you've got a point.  Heard Lazerus say he started off as a buff pilot for a long time, and pretty sure I've heard Morph say the same? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Heck, when I first crawled onto this beach, first words out of my mouth were "DOES ANYONE NEED A GUNNER??????????"

[Toad]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Now if FT is to be made uncapturable, I want -
The GV area -
Where VH's can't be destroyed.
Where eggs have no effect on GV's.

And that still wouldn't stop someone flying an IL2 in to strafe guys.

Will it happen, I doubt it, same goes for uncapturable FT.

No one is asking for FH's that can't be destroyed. I'm asking for a place where the fields can't be captured and ord is disabled. I see no reason why a TT area couldn't be handled in the same way.

No one is asking for a place where aircraft can't be shot down by GV's either.

Re-read it.

TT's and FT's within rings of 50K mountains, devoid of ord and troops solves the problem. Wouldn't need more than a sector or two of terrain and the "reset" conditions could be adusted to take these bases into account as nulls.

You'd get a blocked off TT with no ord or troops. You'd get a TT with no aircraft while FT would have to put up with GV's from the Airfield VH.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I'd have to disagree there. Seems more like 2/3's to me. Add up the people actually fighting and then the 20 or 30 griefers trying to pork and/or capture it, at the very least it's 1/2. Of course when the map gets milkrun close to the point of reset alot leave FT to try to save it, maybe that's where your 1/4 comes from..

Zazen

No way is 2/3 of the logged on players at FT.
Even a quick glimpse at the darbars on the map shows that your WAY off.

Always more full darbars all over the map.

I stand by around 1/4.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Kev367th
No way is 2/3 of the logged on players at FT.
Even a quick glimpse at the darbars on the map shows that your WAY off.

Always more full darbars all over the map.

I stand by around 1/4.

Ummm Kev, do you realize dar bars are relative numeric indicators? Meaning a full dar bar could be 10 people or 1000 people? It's a graphical numeric comparison of friendlies to enemies within a given sector... So, 10 people in a sector vs. noone would be a full dar bar and 100 friendlies vs. 100 enemies at FT would just be one full dar bar vs. another full dar bar...So, the dar bars for a sector with 10 enemy and 5 friendly would look the exact same as a sector with 100 enemy and 50 friendly, it would be a full dar bar vs. half a  dar bar...In other words, all full dar bars are not created equal....So, you looking at the map and seeing 2 full dar bars at FT and 8 full dar bars elsewhere on the map does not mean there's 4 times as many people elsewhere on the map than at FT...Those two bars at FT could represent 200 people and the 8 full bars elsewhere could represent 80 people total, it's all in relative proportion to forces arrayed within a given sector...

(I'm just using arbitrary numbers for explanation purposes)



Zazen

[Kev367th]

Yes I realise and it still doesn't change my opinion.

Looking around the FT map there are always way more playing the 'land grab' / 'win the war' game.

Would have thoguht the CT would have been a perfect arena for furballers, no land grabbing just historical matchups.

Anyway as I said, the uncapturable base thing wont happen, if it's at all possible.
I would guess it is an arena setting and not possible on individual bases.

Map designers/CM's would have a better idea.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Kev367th
No way is 2/3 of the logged on players at FT.
Even a quick glimpse at the darbars on the map shows that your WAY off.

Always more full darbars all over the map.

I stand by around 1/4.

Lesse ... on an average night there's usually between 350 and 400 people in the MA during peak hours. No way there's even 200 people packed into FT. If there were, frame rates would plummet and there'd be all manner of whinage about "you give us FT but the frames are so bad we can't use it."

I'd say 1/4 is a very generous estimate.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Lesse ... on an average night there's usually between 350 and 400 people in the MA during peak hours. No way there's even 200 people packed into FT. If there were, frame rates would plummet and there'd be all manner of whinage about "you give us FT but the frames are so bad we can't use it."

I'd say 1/4 is a very generous estimate.

Framerates do get chunky at FT during prime-time...Especially if the fight within visual range contains more than 50 planes. The numbers only affect FR's at FT that are within visual range of one another. So there could very well be 200 people there, all totalled, people in GV's, buffs alting away from the center lake, planes at various stages of taking off and RTB'ing, PT boats (groan) and fighters furballing, vulching, porking, etc. spread throughout the 3 base area, but not all of them anywhere close to within visual range of one another...I can assure you, as someone who lives there when Donut is up, during prime-time there is waaay more than 100 total people at FT...200 would probably be about right for peak hours...assuming of course no toolshedding griefers have ruined it already...




Zazen

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Zazen13
...200 would probably be about right for peak hours...assuming of course no toolshedding griefers have ruined it already...
 

[mars01]

Funny Dok you say Zaz is beating a dead horse, but yet here you stand with you stick taking your whacks.  You don't like the topic, go away and STFU.  You guys keep crying about the same old topic, here is a news flash..  IF you don't post the topic goes away.

I would think it is evenly split.  FT always has a large number of participants.  If it didn't you guys wouldn't even be here trying to say it doesn't.  Even if it doesn't there are at least 50 to 100 people prime time, so whay wouldn't HT want to accomodate them as well as you tool heros.  You have the rest of the frilkin map, do you really need three more bases to play your game.  Sheeesh.

Would have thoguht the CT would have been a perfect arena for furballers, no land grabbing just historical matchups.

Again, other arenas don't work well because people gravitate to the MA.  Why, cause that is where everyone is and goes.

But then I could make an equally narrow sighted statement and say, I would think Offline play would be perfect for you tool shedders.  Same incorrect logic.