Author Topic: Defining bad game-play  (Read 24942 times)

Offline 1Boner

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #105 on: April 15, 2009, 02:54:49 PM »
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - do not see this much myself, usually only see the 40 LA7s, Spit 16s and Corsairs trying to vulch.


40 LA-7s!!!

Can i fly with you some night, Ive NEVER seen that many La-7s at the same time!!

Must have been awesome!!

Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever seen 20 of them flying together.

You should buy a lottery ticket the next time you see that many of them, you're a pretty lucky guy!!

I don't know why anyone would fly that plane anyway, Its so dweeby and easy mode.

40!! Really?
"Life is just as deadly as it looks"  Richard Thompson

"So umm.... just to make sure I have this right.  What you are asking is for the bombers carrying bombs, to stop dropping bombs on the bombs, so the bombers can carry bombs to bomb things with?"  AKP

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #106 on: April 15, 2009, 03:11:28 PM »
I pretty much agree with this list. However, the fact that I agree does not make it any more or less true than it was before.  :salute:devil

I'm not talking about players that are lame, I'm talking about lame game play. This is the line you missed or miss understood...

I'm saying that the majority of the players in the game would consider...

  • HOs lame
  • dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber
  • running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame
  • spawn camping lame
  • being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame
  • suicide dive bombers lame
  • bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame
  • hiding captured CVs lame



"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 Crash Orange

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #107 on: April 15, 2009, 04:55:02 PM »
I'm not talking about players that are lame, I'm talking about lame game play. This is the line you missed or miss understood...

I'm saying that the majority of the players in the game would consider...

HOs lame - sure
dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber - yes, it's also a flaw in the modeling. But then, so are hyper-accurate bombsites and I use those regularly.
running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - not really. Whatever floats your boat. I don't see how they hurt anyone. It would be boring if there was never any decent resistance.
spawn camping lame - a little, I guess, but more "boring" than "lame," and if you don't like it, just don't up where they're camped. It's only really lame if that's all you do.
being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame - definitely
suicide dive bombers lame - depends on what you mean by "suicide". Deliberately augering or bailing after your drop to avoid fighting, yes, extremely lame. Anytime you auger or bail to avoid a fight it's lame. Solo base bombing where the risk is high but you do attempt to live through it, not lame at all.
bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame - yes, but again, this is really a flaw in the game modeling that should be corrected. It's lame using it to resupply on defense too, but everyone seems to do it.
hiding captured CVs lame - not really. Assuming your side has other CVs you're willing to risk in battle, why is it lame? It's just smart game play, if you consider that taking bases is a valid game objective (but not the only objective).

I would also agree that never flying except in a big group and immediately running for home when faced with the prospect of a fight where you don't have both numbers and alt is very lame. What I disagree with is I don't think that's a result of any kind of squad missions. You find people like that skulking above and around the edges of all the huge semi-permanent furballs that seem to form on every map. You can tell you have one when a guy follows you around 5k above but never makes any move to attack you until another enemy shows up to engage you. I also don't think it's because they lack skill - some of them are newbs, but there are also people who have enough skill to win many, maybe even most of their fights, but they don't want to win many of their fights, they want to win all of them. That's not ignorance or desire for instant gratification, it's ego.

So you see, we agree on some and disagree on others. And that's okay, the game is big enough for both of us.

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17571
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #108 on: April 15, 2009, 05:17:26 PM »
HOs lame - sure
dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber - yes, it's also a flaw in the modeling. But then, so are hyper-accurate bombsites and I use those regularly.
running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - not really. Whatever floats your boat. I don't see how they hurt anyone. It would be boring if there was never any decent resistance.
spawn camping lame - a little, I guess, but more "boring" than "lame," and if you don't like it, just don't up where they're camped. It's only really lame if that's all you do.
being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame - definitely
suicide dive bombers lame - depends on what you mean by "suicide". Deliberately augering or bailing after your drop to avoid fighting, yes, extremely lame. Anytime you auger or bail to avoid a fight it's lame. Solo base bombing where the risk is high but you do attempt to live through it, not lame at all.
bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame - yes, but again, this is really a flaw in the game modeling that should be corrected. It's lame using it to resupply on defense too, but everyone seems to do it.
hiding captured CVs lame - not really. Assuming your side has other CVs you're willing to risk in battle, why is it lame? It's just smart game play, if you consider that taking bases is a valid game objective (but not the only objective).

I would also agree that never flying except in a big group and immediately running for home when faced with the prospect of a fight where you don't have both numbers and alt is very lame. What I disagree with is I don't think that's a result of any kind of squad missions. You find people like that skulking above and around the edges of all the huge semi-permanent furballs that seem to form on every map. You can tell you have one when a guy follows you around 5k above but never makes any move to attack you until another enemy shows up to engage you. I also don't think it's because they lack skill - some of them are newbs, but there are also people who have enough skill to win many, maybe even most of their fights, but they don't want to win many of their fights, they want to win all of them. That's not ignorance or desire for instant gratification, it's ego.

So you see, we agree on some and disagree on others. And that's okay, the game is big enough for both of us.

You agreed with me on everything with a couple of "possible exceptions to the rule" type things on a couple. Except for the hiding of CVs (Its a COMBAT game, use it for combat. The main objective IS combat.)

Whats happening is PLAYER A for what ever reason, has found that if he can get 10 or more guys together and hide under radar he can capture bases. In most cases he doesn't have the skills to do it any other way. So he gets a few other of like skill to join up and they start having success. Next thing you know they decide to become a squad, why not they are always together dodging trees on their missions. Then some new guys log in, and want to be part of the community. These guys are ALWAYS running missions.... its the only thing they can do. So the new guy joins up and "learns" how to run missions from MR NOE and his gang. Next thing, the squad splits, or the new guy makes his own, it doesn't matter, the only skills here are how to fly in between trees. So it continues on.

Yes there are a few game mechanics problem like dive bombing lancs, and the dry spawns, but to use Moms old saying "If Jimmy jumps off the bridge, are you going to also?" If the poor game play things that people can agree on..... like the list posted... can be taught to the community that it is a "frowned on practice" don't you think it would help people to learn more, expand the limited way they play the game?

Offline DrDea

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #109 on: April 15, 2009, 05:47:36 PM »
It may be because some people don't like the real aspect of the distance to fly from one base to another which, may include spending 15 minutes flying a couple sectors to a fight or base and then getting shot down within 20 seconds once they arrive.  Some who are more interested in instant action games may have a hard time enjoying the climb to alt, having some SA, and then going into an ACM.  They may feel they have done all this work before getting to the fight and don't want it to be over so fast.  Just a neutral thought.

  Good point.
The Flying Circus.Were just like you.Only prettier.

FSO 334 Flying Eagles. Fencers Heros.

Offline falcon23

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 882
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #110 on: April 15, 2009, 07:35:15 PM »
You agreed with me on everything with a couple of "possible exceptions to the rule" type things on a couple. Except for the hiding of CVs (Its a COMBAT game, use it for combat. The main objective IS combat.)

Whats happening is PLAYER A for what ever reason, has found that if he can get 10 or more guys together and hide under radar he can capture bases. In most cases he doesn't have the skills to do it any other way. So he gets a few other of like skill to join up and they start having success. Next thing you know they decide to become a squad, why not they are always together dodging trees on their missions. Then some new guys log in, and want to be part of the community. These guys are ALWAYS running missions.... its the only thing they can do. So the new guy joins up and "learns" how to run missions from MR NOE and his gang. Next thing, the squad splits, or the new guy makes his own, it doesn't matter, the only skills here are how to fly in between trees. So it continues on.

Yes there are a few game mechanics problem like dive bombing lancs, and the dry spawns, but to use Moms old saying "If Jimmy jumps off the bridge, are you going to also?" If the poor game play things that people can agree on..... like the list posted... can be taught to the community that it is a "frowned on practice" don't you think it would help people to learn more, expand the limited way they play the game?

 Fugitive  :salute  ,
  It does not HELP that the people who shoot down the new guy you are speaking of,RUn their mouths off on him on 200 or wherever about his HOing,LACK OF ACM,or his running,The guy has probably not been playing very long,and calling him a NOOB,and other "CHOICE" names does not in any way help what you are trying to accomplish.How often do  ANY of the guys who feel the way you do,EVER take them aside and TRY to teach them something,BEFORE biting his head off about how he didnt PLAY THE GAME RIGHT..

                                           Falcon23 :salute
   

Offline oTRALFZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #111 on: April 15, 2009, 09:32:52 PM »
Fugitive  :salute  ,
  It does not HELP that the people who shoot down the new guy you are speaking of,RUn their mouths off on him on 200 or wherever about his HOing,LACK OF ACM,or his running,The guy has probably not been playing very long,and calling him a NOOB,and other "CHOICE" names does not in any way help what you are trying to accomplish.How often do  ANY of the guys who feel the way you do,EVER take them aside and TRY to teach them something,BEFORE biting his head off about how he didnt PLAY THE GAME RIGHT..

                                           Falcon23 :salute
  
**2345231211 has collided with you***. you generaly chaulk this up to the guy not knowing any better. The guys that get blasted on 200 are the ones that are pretty well known and should know better.
Much is said to what intentions the other guy has soon after a merge takes place. ( He constantly merges and goes for the HO, or he repeats attempts to pick in his pony, fails, egresses 3k..rinse and repeat) Personaly, I would never berate anyone who tries to give you a good fight and most here wont either.
****Let the beatings begin***


in game name: Tralfaz

Offline olskool2

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
      • Total Nonsense
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #112 on: April 15, 2009, 10:52:37 PM »
The quality of the general population has decreased, at least in my mind, over the past year and a half. I think the game's population has grown past the community's ability to effectively assimilate them. Just go to the Training Arena or Dueling Arena to see the proof. A good majority of our new players skip the TA (why wouldn't they, it's not exactly hard, simmy flying in AH2). The Dueling Arena has degraded to a mere joke of the fun it used to be, now that you have to --constantly-- use SA there to look for the NOE picker, which is exactly what the DA was used to avoid.

They end up following hordes, shying away from combat without an absolute advantage, and generally learning behaviors that the 'old' players call lameness. Eventually, a lot of 'old' hands will leave, leaving the new community's rules as the norm.

This happens in every online game to some extent, at least any I've ever played.

Maybe they'll start work on that WW1 flying game so we can beta test something and start the cycle over.

Offline 1Boner

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #113 on: April 15, 2009, 11:05:08 PM »
shying away from combat without an absolute advantage

Ya see that all the time, and its usually NOT the new guys.

But the "old hands" call it flying to the planes strengths, or flying "smart".
"Life is just as deadly as it looks"  Richard Thompson

"So umm.... just to make sure I have this right.  What you are asking is for the bombers carrying bombs, to stop dropping bombs on the bombs, so the bombers can carry bombs to bomb things with?"  AKP

Offline olskool2

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
      • Total Nonsense
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #114 on: April 15, 2009, 11:08:26 PM »
Ya see that all the time, and its usually NOT the new guys.

But the "old hands" call it flying to the planes strengths, or flying "smart".

True enough. Everyone picks up on the new tactics to stay competitive.


Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17571
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #115 on: April 16, 2009, 08:20:00 AM »
Fugitive  :salute  ,
  It does not HELP that the people who shoot down the new guy you are speaking of,RUn their mouths off on him on 200 or wherever about his HOing,LACK OF ACM,or his running,The guy has probably not been playing very long,and calling him a NOOB,and other "CHOICE" names does not in any way help what you are trying to accomplish.How often do  ANY of the guys who feel the way you do,EVER take them aside and TRY to teach them something,BEFORE biting his head off about how he didnt PLAY THE GAME RIGHT..

                                           Falcon23 :salute
   

I hope your not refering to me in this post. I very rarely call anyone out over the radio, and when I do it some one I know has been flying for awhile. I'll call out HOs when I get them from people who should know better. The same will go for a cherry pick. It really pisses me off when I'm fighting 2 or 3 already and another guy has to pick me.

I agree that we have some A-holes playing this game. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do about them except to ignore them. They get their jollies off by pissing people off. If you don't get pissed off at them they loose there power. They effect game play, but they are not the cause of poor game play.

Offline bmwgs

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #116 on: April 16, 2009, 11:35:23 AM »
I hope your not refering to me in this post. I very rarely call anyone out over the radio, and when I do it some one I know has been flying for awhile. I'll call out HOs when I get them from people who should know better. The same will go for a cherry pick. It really pisses me off when I'm fighting 2 or 3 already and another guy has to pick me.
I agree that we have some A-holes playing this game. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do about them except to ignore them. They get their jollies off by pissing people off. If you don't get pissed off at them they loose there power. They effect game play, but they are not the cause of poor game play.

If you consider picking "lame" game play  Your list just got real short.

Fred 
One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine... - From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17571
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #117 on: April 16, 2009, 12:49:54 PM »
If you consider picking "lame" game play  Your list just got real short.

Fred 

Anyone who jumps in on a 3 vs 1 is lame and is showing poor game play. Are you so hard up for a kill that you would have to do that? I guess when I write things out like that I should say that after a certain number of guys are already in on someone it then turns into a "gang". Do you read these things and think about them or do you just start typing?

If its a wingman picking me off of his wingmans tail then I deserve it for my poor SA. There is still a challenge to a 2 on 1 and in some small percentage of folks a 3 on 1, but making it 4 on 1 for any one is lame.

Offline bmwgs

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #118 on: April 16, 2009, 12:52:01 PM »
Anyone who jumps in on a 3 vs 1 is lame and is showing poor game play. Are you so hard up for a kill that you would have to do that? I guess when I write things out like that I should say that after a certain number of guys are already in on someone it then turns into a "gang". Do you read these things and think about them or do you just start typing?

If its a wingman picking me off of his wingmans tail then I deserve it for my poor SA. There is still a challenge to a 2 on 1 and in some small percentage of folks a 3 on 1, but making it 4 on 1 for any one is lame.

I actually read quite well, and I stand by my post.  Your list will be very short even including what you stated in this post.

Fred
One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine... - From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17571
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #119 on: April 16, 2009, 12:55:12 PM »
I actually read quite well, and I stand by my post.  Your list will be very short even including what you stated in this post.

Fred

so your saying this NOT lame game play, being the 4th or 5th in on a guy?