Author Topic: Defining bad game-play  (Read 19192 times)

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24108
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2009, 01:43:10 PM »
Falcon I only read part of the first page of this thread. In only a couple of your posts I can already see that you seem to be what Fug was refering to. If you have no clue as to right and wrong or good and bad there is no sense even worrying about it.
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2009, 01:51:06 PM »
Honor is dictated by the community.

Uh, no. Things are what they are, outside of what the group thinks. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. The collective opinion of a given community may be honorable, it may be vile, but it is always irrelevant.

"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2009, 02:04:24 PM »
Uh, no. Things are what they are, outside of what the group thinks. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. The collective opinion of a given community may be honorable, it may be vile, but it is always irrelevant.

Don't forget to read "community" as "small group of self-appointed oligarchs who believe others give a crap what they think." :lol
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline falcon23

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 882
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2009, 02:42:42 PM »
Falcon I only read part of the first page of this thread. In only a couple of your posts I can already see that you seem to be what Fug was refering to. If you have no clue as to right and wrong or good and bad there is no sense even worrying about it.

 I have come to the conclusion that their is no "GOOD" or "BAD"  gameplay..one mans "GOOD" gameplay is anothers "BAD" gameplay.

 The game is whatever one wants to make it..I dont think this will ever change..There will always be people complaining about one thing or another.because they got shot down,a base got taken,And the complaint about HOW it happened.."I GOT HO'ED","HE WAS SPAWN CAMPING","YOUR BUDDIES HELPED YOU"etc..etc...

  As far as defining bad game-play or even good game-play,opinions vary to the point it will never be "SET" in stone,it is all in the mind of the one playing the game. :salute

     

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2009, 03:04:14 PM »
Falcon if there were no "bad" gameplay, things like ENY balancing and switch time restrictions wouldn't exist.
If I run into a player that doesn't know what he's doing, in a 1:1.. And I just snuff him out in a couple of seconds, that's "worse" gameplay than playing along with his attempts for at least a little while.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16187
      • 56 FG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #50 on: April 13, 2009, 03:09:24 PM »
For every screenshot you can show of a bish mission into a field like that I can show you twice as many of both rook and knight missions. I can always tell when its happening from the 'other' LW arena because bish will have an eny and cannot change arenas because of the cap.

NO body said this was a "bishop" thing, it is a game wide thing. Yes Rooks horde, as well as Knights, and most likely just as much.


Uh, no. Things are what they are, outside of what the group thinks. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. The collective opinion of a given community may be honorable, it may be vile, but it is always irrelevant.


With in the game it most certainly is. The community always dictates the way most things go, honor included. In AW it was "cool" to have kill macros. The community encouraged it. In AH it is not, those displaying them are ridiculed. Again, the community decided. The same hold true with honor. Why do most people complain about HOs? Because its lame/not honorable, it sounds like the community it trying to speak and set a standard. It's still a big topic, and will likely go on going back and forth for years to come, but its how it works.

Don't confuse honor in real life, with honor in this game. People have to learn to keep the game and real life separate. What passes for honor on the other side of this screen may mean much different things to many different people. The same as "they did it in the war" doesn't carry any weight here because this is a game, NOT real life.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 03:18:22 PM by The Fugitive »

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25063
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #51 on: April 13, 2009, 04:34:05 PM »
I think a lot of people are solely focusing one a sympton of 'bad game play' and not the root cause.  Until players make the effort to shed the 'Capture the Flag/Air Quake' mentality, game play will always suffer.  To me, a perfect example of the root cause of the bad game play can be seen how the majority fly in the furball area of the DA, which to be honest is just a microcosm of the MA.  It's just more centralized and the affects more readily apparent.

Let's face the fact, the 'hord' is part of the game whether we like it or not.  It's a designed element into the game play and nothing will remove that fact.  If you look at any military, I don't think one advocates attacking a well defended base with anything less than a numerical advantage.  Should we really be that suprised that players are using the same strategy?


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2009, 04:43:09 PM »
Until players make the effort to shed the 'Capture the Flag/Air Quake' mentality, game play will always suffer.  To me, a perfect example of the root cause of the bad game play can be seen how the majority fly in the furball area of the DA, which to be honest is just a microcosm of the MA.

I dislike the furball area of the DA pond, but one thing it should not be compared to is the "capture the flag" aspect of the main arena.  When people say there would not be air combat without land to grab, I point to the DA pond as a counter-example.  Is it a good example of air combat?  Hell no, but at least the scum-pond devotees understand that you don't need real-estate to have fun shooting stuff.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #53 on: April 13, 2009, 04:48:51 PM »
Define what is "necessary". Sounds like a "perfect world" term.
3 to 1 ratio should be enough to take any base but 2v1 should still be very easy :salute
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8704
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2009, 04:51:49 PM »
Honor is honesty to one's own beliefs. Notice....one's own beliefs not beliefs imposed on him by others.

Without addressing the rest of your note, this part is just plain wrong.  By this definition people like Hitler, Himmler, Stalin, Doctor President Idi Amin Dada, Jack the Ripper and plenty of others were honorable people.  Honor is very much about living up to a standard admired by the community.

- oldman

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2009, 05:35:01 PM »
       Here's the game in a nutshell.

       You start out knowing next to nothing, and invest months to years learning how to play. You will meet good opponents and lousy ones, and even more in between. You'll be in a 51 and frustrated why someone takes a hurri2c and complain that he only HOs you. You'll be in a Hurri2c and complain the 51 only wants to run. You'll be in abomber and get yelled at for dropping hangars, and a little while later you'll be yelling at the fighters that while they were furballing the goon died, and that you should have taken down the hangars.

      You will eventually get pretty good at the game and any fight you lose its not because the other guy outflew you or you made a mistake, its because the guy who shot you did something lame.

      You'll get on 200 to call out another person with the sole intent to make him look small, when in fact doing so reflects back on the original typist.

      Your passion for the game becomes a sort of selfish sickness where the only thing that matters is how you maintain your ego, where everyone is there for your entertainment, and abuse.

      Eventually you either wallow in that sad state of mind, or learn to say screw it and relax and enjoy the game and people in it, or quit, or die.
Couldn't have stated it better myself FiLtH  :aok

Although some behavior may be deemed unsavory by the keepers of the flame, the truth is, if it can be done in-game, it will be done in-game. No amount of hand-wringing or editorializing on the forum will ever change that. For every player who reads your posts, there will be five who never read them. (and most likely an even larger number who will silently tell you to stick it!)

So you're left with three choices:

1) quit
2) continue to spend your time complaining (to no avail)
3) just play the way you choose to, and accept that the other guy is going to do the same

 :salute
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25063
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2009, 06:03:06 PM »
I dislike the furball area of the DA pond, but one thing it should not be compared to is the "capture the flag" aspect of the main arena.  When people say there would not be air combat without land to grab, I point to the DA pond as a counter-example.  Is it a good example of air combat?  Hell no, but at least the scum-pond devotees understand that you don't need real-estate to have fun shooting stuff.

In retrospect, I should have been a little more clear about the 'Capture the Flag' comparison comment.  I wasn't referring to base captures but rather the game play that is prevailent in most CTF style games.  If anyone has ever played Quake II CTF, TF/2 or any other CTF shooter knows what I'm talking about.  Tactics and skill has taken a back seat to gamey game play in order to acheive the quickest results with as little sacrifice as possible.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2009, 06:20:26 PM »

With in the game it most certainly is. The community always dictates the way most things go, honor included. In AW it was "cool" to have kill macros. The community encouraged it. In AH it is not, those displaying them are ridiculed. Again, the community decided. The same hold true with honor.

It is either in bad taste or it is not. For instance, there are whole games full of people who  smack-talk like worst gutter trash, and their communities accepts this. This does not make it right. Thankfully AHII is better than most in this regard.

Why do most people complain about HOs? Because its lame/not honorable, it sounds like the community it trying to speak and set a standard. It's still a big topic, and will likely go on going back and forth for years to come, but its how it works.

Why must we make it a matter of some putative "honor" when I can sit here and give perfectly good reasons to avoid HO'ing? If you can understand why HO'ing is generally a bad idea without making it into a commandment, you will try to avoid it as a bad risk under most circumstances. But you won't have an asinine absolute hanging around your neck, like believing it would be "dishonorable" to HO a Spitfire who obligingly flies directly at your 110G.  :devil

Don't confuse honor in real life, with honor in this game. People have to learn to keep the game and real life separate. What passes for honor on the other side of this screen may mean much different things to many different people. The same as "they did it in the war" doesn't carry any weight here because this is a game, NOT real life.

Nope, they are one in the same. If I agree to duel with you with a cold merge and HO on the merge, then I have done something dishonorable. If I meet you randomly in the MA and choose to HO you, I have not done something dishonorable, merely something stupid. I am not dishonored if I fail to follow any rules which I have not agreed to, either explicitly or implicitly by joining the game, as set by HTC. Examples of valid rules of this sort would be no hacking, cable-pulling, shade-vulching, etc.

An example of a rule which is *not* valid and which we have *not* all agreed to follow is the idea of "never disengage from a 1v1 in the MA no matter the circumstances." This is not a matter of honor, it is merely a preference of some players that they wish to inflict on other players, despite the fact that they don't buy the notion.

"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16187
      • 56 FG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2009, 06:27:35 PM »
In retrospect, I should have been a little more clear about the 'Capture the Flag' comparison comment.  I wasn't referring to base captures but rather the game play that is prevailent in most CTF style games.  If anyone has ever played Quake II CTF, TF/2 or any other CTF shooter knows what I'm talking about.  Tactics and skill has taken a back seat to gamey game play in order to acheive the quickest results with as little sacrifice as possible.


ack-ack


You said it much better in this post.

I don't think any one is suggesting to take away the base capture element of the game. All we are suggesting is to let everyone play the game. By running NOE's or using hordes your avoiding the fight, your making the game unplayable for the other side, so in turn creating poor game play. I'm going to use that nasty term here..... "Learn" to use tactics and PLAY the game.

This game isn't about running as fast as you can spray your rounds all over the place to take as many down with you, only to respawn and do the same thing again. This game is about "how" you get there as much as getting there. Use some tactics, make some plans, then try to execute them. And no 12 100, 4 niks, and 4 goons running NOE is NOT a plan  :D

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16187
      • 56 FG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2009, 06:39:34 PM »
It is either in bad taste or it is not. For instance, there are whole games full of people who  smack-talk like worst gutter trash, and their communities accepts this. This does not make it right. Thankfully AHII is better than most in this regard.

Why must we make it a matter of some putative "honor" when I can sit here and give perfectly good reasons to avoid HO'ing? If you can understand why HO'ing is generally a bad idea without making it into a commandment, you will try to avoid it as a bad risk under most circumstances. But you won't have an asinine absolute hanging around your neck, like believing it would be "dishonorable" to HO a Spitfire who obligingly flies directly at your 110G.  :devil

Nope, they are one in the same. If I agree to duel with you with a cold merge and HO on the merge, then I have done something dishonorable. If I meet you randomly in the MA and choose to HO you, I have not done something dishonorable, merely something stupid. I am not dishonored if I fail to follow any rules which I have not agreed to, either explicitly or implicitly by joining the game, as set by HTC. Examples of valid rules of this sort would be no hacking, cable-pulling, shade-vulching, etc.

An example of a rule which is *not* valid and which we have *not* all agreed to follow is the idea of "never disengage from a 1v1 in the MA no matter the circumstances." This is not a matter of honor, it is merely a preference of some players that they wish to inflict on other players, despite the fact that they don't buy the notion.

This is where I see most people have trouble with separation.

This game is one situation, one community, one set of rules, either written, or implied. Other games are different, you mention some have much worst smack talking. That community allows that to happen, where this one either by ridicule, or by the MODs doesn't. The same goes with what "honor" is expected by its peers. This community is the one we are talking about, not the WoW server, nor the ELKS down on main street, Aces High. Like I was sayinig to Dawger, he might have been a top dog at warbirds, but here he is just another dweeb working his way into the community. Sure he might show better skills quicker, but ...from his post... he will use HO's and such which are frowned on here and he will be called out for it, why, because this community has its rules. It own type of honor.