60 of my buddies vs the ack (hangars dropped)

[Tank-Ace]

You back Debrody?

Nobodys really sure whats going on. His name has flights logged recently, but then a while back he said something about not flying this summer, and being unable to make the upcomming scenario.

[321BAR]

couldn't agree more!

(Image removed from quote.)

hottest... TV show out there.... hottest i swear....

[Shuffler]

Close.  The point of the MA is sides-based virtual combat.  10v1 is combat.  1 guy shouldn't dive into a crowd of 10 and expect them to break out one at a time and fight him like he's Chuck Norris in a movie.  The one should've brought friends if he wanted to take on 10.

Wiley.

You mean one guy should not take off where 30 are vulching.


If the 10 that are on the one call it combat then they need some time in the TA

[ink]

You mean one guy should not take off where 30 are vulching.


If the 10 that are on the one call it combat then they need some time in the TA

spot on   

I stopped Trying to understand that mentality

[bustr]

INK,

Life takes place between the ears no matter how much you want something else to be the answer. That is where we all live our lives.

The recent phenomenon of the Online or server based multiplayer computer games is exposing you to that. If when you were a child you played orginaised sports or pickup sandlot versions of them you were exposed to only those children who wanted to be on that feild risking their ego and limbs becasue consiquences HURT versus delayed hard won rewards are the best. You can see the same phenomenon in how few in our population volinteer for the ARMY or Marines. With the advent of multiplayer online games you are being exposed to the far greater numbers who were never at the sandlot or Basic Camps exposing themselves to pain and risk.

Even though a computer game with unlimited lives is risk free at face value. Two conflicting genetic factors interfere with the simplicity of the risk free reality of unlimited lives in a fantasy.

1. - The majority of humans are not privleged by natural aptitiude or training with the ability to divorce their subconcious responces to conflict and personal danger from the action on the computer monitor. Also it is a genetic subset of males who's natural response to conflict and danger is to rush towards it's source versus self preservation. You can through intensive training like the ARMY and Marines condition those adverse to the danger to at least control the response by the virtue of the repetitius training regiments imposed in basic training and beyond.

2. - Loosing for the majority of the population is a negative and painful experience. Once in the moment of the action, most people's ability to calculate the future tense abstract of, this moment does not matter becasue I have unlimited opportunities to repeat it and ultimatly win is not online in their noggin. Very often in real life it is not well developed becasue you are describing risk aversion or risk tollerence which can be measuered these days vsia standardised testing and MRI imaging. Competition and conflict are siamese siblings in the mind. Each loss or potential of loss in each moment is independant of time and space to the subconcious. For most players in the game this potential loss now is "The only Loss" in the universe at that moment. It has to be lived through once the action is taken to step out into the arena. It is also colored by the player's intimate personal assesment of their ability to win in the current environment during each "The only Loss" moment.

It's a species of narcasism calling them a coward to assert they can spend the same time you chose to invest learning ACM and improve their chances of winning everytime. You do not live the same lives and the statement just pats you on the back for your fortune of having the time or genetic gift.

Once you know how something works where humans are concerned. Then you keep acting like it dosent. One could begin describing how "intollerance","narcasism", "sadism" and "dopamine addiction" are siblings of the same mother neruobilogicly. Recently the gene associated with tribalism and the human trait of treating outsiders as less human than insiders has been mapped. It's one of those core survival things that define us subconciously and powerfuly. You can extrapolate this to squads and how badly we treat each other in the game.

But, it do feel dopamine wise soo good to be able to justify: "I'm better than you becasue you are a coward neener, neener, neener" in an unlimited life cartoon game." Ultimately it's all about the dopamine self reward function of the brain. And it's 100% pure for just a meesly $14.95 a month.

Oh the thing called burning out on the game is realy reaching your personal tollerance for being able to produce dopamine in response to stimulation in the game. Often why those hottest sticks get bored and leave sooner than less talented players. And why they had very limited tollerances for the percieved short comings of other players. Not all that different from speed and cocain users profiles.

Thats a paper for another time titled: Adrenalin and Dopamine Addiction Motivation versus Imagination Fulfilment and Dopamine Self Reward in Online Gaming Communities.

Man's gotta have a hobby to temper his worst instincts so as not to become their slave.

[ink]

INK,

Life takes place between the ears no matter how much you want something else to be the answer. That is where we all live our lives.

The recent phenomenon of the Online or server based multiplayer computer games is exposing you to that. If when you were a child you played orginaised sports or pickup sandlot versions of them you were exposed to only those children who wanted to be on that feild risking their ego and limbs becasue consiquences HURT versus delayed hard won rewards are the best. You can see the same phenomenon in how few in our population volinteer for the ARMY or Marines. With the advent of multiplayer online games you are being exposed to the far greater numbers who were never at the sandlot or Basic Camps exposing themselves to pain and risk.

Even though a computer game with unlimited lives is risk free at face value. Two conflicting genetic factors interfere with the simplicity of the risk free reality of unlimited lives in a fantasy.

1. - The majority of humans are not privleged by natural aptitiude or training with the ability to divorce their subconcious responces to conflict and personal danger from the action on the computer monitor. Also it is a genetic subset of males who's natural response to conflict and danger is to rush towards it's source versus self preservation. You can through intensive training like the ARMY and Marines condition those adverse to the danger to at least control the response by the virtue of the repetitius training regiments imposed in basic training and beyond.

2. - Loosing for the majority of the population is a negative and painful experience. Once in the moment of the action, most people's ability to calculate the future tense abstract of, this moment does not matter becasue I have unlimited opportunities to repeat it and ultimatly win is not online in their noggin. Very often in real life it is not well developed becasue you are describing risk aversion or risk tollerence which can be measuered these days vsia standardised testing and MRI imaging. Competition and conflict are siamese siblings in the mind. Each loss or potential of loss in each moment is independant of time and space to the subconcious. For most players in the game this potential loss now is "The only Loss" in the universe at that moment. It has to be lived through once the action is taken to step out into the arena. It is also colored by the player's intimate personal assesment of their ability to win in the current environment during each "The only Loss" moment.

It's a species of narcasism calling them a coward to assert they can spend the same time you chose to invest learning ACM and improve their chances of winning everytime. You do not live the same lives and the statement just pats you on the back for your fortune of having the time or genetic gift.

Once you know how something works where humans are concerned. Then you keep acting like it dosent. One could begin describing how "intollerance","narcasism", "sadism" and "dopamine addiction" are siblings of the same mother neruobilogicly. Recently the gene associated with tribalism and the human trait of treating outsiders as less human than insiders has been mapped. It's one of those core survival things that define us subconciously and powerfuly. You can extrapolate this to squads and how badly we treat each other in the game.

But, it do feel dopamine wise soo good to be able to justify: "I'm better than you becasue you are a coward neener, neener, neener" in an unlimited life cartoon game." Ultimately it's all about the dopamine self reward function of the brain. And it's 100% pure for just a meesly $14.95 a month.

Oh the thing called burning out on the game is realy reaching your personal tollerance for being able to produce dopamine in response to stimulation in the game. Often why those hottest sticks get bored and leave sooner than less talented players. And why they had very limited tollerances for the percieved short comings of other players. Not all that different from speed and cocain users profiles.

Thats a paper for another time titled: Adrenalin and Dopamine Addiction Motivation versus Imagination Fulfilment and Dopamine Self Reward in Online Gaming Communities.

Man's gotta have a hobby to temper his worst instincts so as not to become their slave.

holy hell batman

you think too much......

[Tank-Ace]

Bustr, i think you've read too far into the situation. Explaining the biological and neurological reasons for a tendency is one thing. But then you've gone and tried to use it to explain, and to some extent justify, why people do things in game.


And really, it sounds a lot like the "everybodys a winner!" mentality thats been attacking society like a tumor in recent years. I mean you've essentially said "Its ok, you're just geneticaly and neruologically pusthed towards a tendency to horde. Don't bother trying to improve, its not your fault!  ".


And really, we (as in society) should under no circumstances and in no situation be forwarding that idiotic idea. If they are physically incapable of improving, then, and only then, should we stop pushing them to improve. If someone is underpreforming, they should not be told "its ok, just try your best". Rather, they should be told "Its ok, you're just starting out with a disadvantage. If you really want to do better, you can do XYZ to help you improve".



As to the coward/squad-bashing thing, I think thats only true to an extent. Theres rarely a squad that doesn't get along with at least ONE other squad in the game.

[Wiley]

You mean one guy should not take off where 30 are vulching.

No.  I mean if you are alone in the MA and wind up within engagement distance of 10 bandits by whatever means, be it taking off under their CAP, happening along them co-alt and co-E, or whatever, you should not expect them to come at you individually, and you shouldn't get mad when they don't.

To me, you guys are the ones that are leaning more towards the 'everybody's a winner' mentality, because you're demanding everybody give you a fair fight when you put or find yourself in a disadvantageous position.

Wiley.

[ink]

No.  I mean if you are alone in the MA and wind up within engagement distance of 10 bandits by whatever means, be it taking off under their CAP, happening along them co-alt and co-E, or whatever, you should not expect them to come at you individually, and you shouldn't get mad when they don't.

To me, you guys are the ones that are leaning more towards the 'everybody's a winner' mentality, because you're demanding everybody give you a fair fight when you put or find yourself in a disadvantageous position.

Wiley.

never said only come at me 1vs1.....show me where I said that

and I don't get "mad" when they attack 10 or more.....I just fight harder wishing I could shoot better

[Oldman731]

No.  I mean if you are alone in the MA and wind up within engagement distance of 10 bandits by whatever means, be it taking off under their CAP, happening along them co-alt and co-E, or whatever, you should not expect them to come at you individually, and you shouldn't get mad when they don't.

I agree, Wiley.  The question is, though:  why would the ten want to pile onto the one?  Why would they not let two, even three, of their number head for him while the others went about their business?  I think that's what he's wondering; not the mind set of the attacker, but the mind set of the attacked.

- oldman

[Plawranc]

Every Noob when they start playing.

[Wiley]

never said only come at me 1vs1.....show me where I said that

and I don't get "mad" when they attack 10 or more.....I just fight harder wishing I could shoot better

I'll grant you that point, but you do go on about how swell it is when someone on either side could attack but didn't.  To me, anything less than maximum effort from an opponent is artificial and a gift, not something to be expected or demanded.

10v1 isn't a display of skill, frankly it's boring.  However, in the MA, if you are within striking range of 10 bandits and you're the only green guy around, why wouldn't you expect them to come to kill you?

I agree, Wiley.  The question is, though:  why would the ten want to pile onto the one?  Why would they not let two, even three, of their number head for him while the others went about their business?  I think that's what he's wondering; not the mind set of the attacker, but the mind set of the attacked.

- oldman

That's the smart play, for certain.  However, the vast majority in the arena aren't thinking in terms of efficiency or working effectively in distributing their forces equally.  They are thinking 'if it's red, it's dead.'


Wiley.

[Rob52240]

Maybe I'm just high.  But right now I see hording as analogous to street gangs.  Everyone wants to make their odds of survival better.

But when the mismatch becomes too lop-sided there just aren't enough kills to be had and it changes from advantageous to boring.

Sometimes it's fun to post a mission that not only looks stupid, but will also need a lot of participation for any chance of success.  I love putting together the occasional mission that looks so stupid that my own squad is skeptical it could possibly work but these missions have an uncanny track record of actually working.

[Butcher]

gotta love those that gang 10vs1 then salute the guy, never understood this mentality, but I love how fast they drop in the DA.

[titanic3]

Maybe I'm just high.  But right now I see hording as analogous to street gangs.  Everyone wants to make their odds of survival better.

But when the mismatch becomes too lop-sided there just aren't enough kills to be had and it changes from advantageous to boring.

Sometimes it's fun to post a mission that not only looks stupid, but will also need a lot of participation for any chance of success.  I love putting together the occasional mission that looks so stupid that my own squad is skeptical it could possibly work but these missions have an uncanny track record of actually working against undefended based

Anytime a NOE mission is spotted soon enough, at least one that is ran by vDallas or Chuwie, it gets raped. I think a have a film somewhere of myself, RedBull and Yarbles stopping an entire NOE mission with about 20 guys and then cleaning up the 5 stragglers behind.