Author Topic: Defining bad game-play  (Read 24954 times)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #570 on: April 29, 2009, 03:20:40 AM »
 First a reply to NB..You asked ME/I a question and I answered it with how I feel..I cannot speak for anyone else but me...

  I dont see how I can be focused on the RED guy and make sure he is "ENTERTAINED" by me..the only way I entertain them is if they shoot me down..That is the point of the game,among others isnt it?? I am not trying to be obstinate,but in the game,it is kill or be killed..It is defend a base,or have it taken from you,this is on all 3 countrys..


To me this is the essential point that gets missed by so many.  This is entertainment.  It isn't kill or be killed as we have unlimited lives and planes.  The idea of that Community that NB speaks of, is what gets missed with this kind of short sighted thinking. 

I'll use tonight as an example.  There were some decent fights late night over the middle Isle.  I ran into a guy named Strong10 in a K4 a few times.  I don't claim to know him at all, but I've encountered him previously and had some good fights.  Tonight was the same.  I happened to get a lucky shot the first time.  He got me after a dizzying rolling scissors the next time.  Each time the talk on 200 was respectful and about the fight.  Third time we bumped into each other we were in the middle of another knock down drag out fight when one of my 'countrymen', came charging through to pick him.  He didn't ask if I needed help, but clearly was looking for the 'kill' without doing any of the work.  I pulled out of the fight, typed that the '38G was out" and gave Strong10 a chance to fight evenly. 

It seemed a fairly simple thing to do.  The entertainment for both of us was a good fight, not a quick kill.  As the night went on, more and more old timers showed up and the conversation on 200 grew more about good fights, and less about the horde.  Guys started to ask if folks needed help before diving in, and they let folks fight if they asked them to stay out.  I can recall a number of different conversations on 200 where folks were talking about great fights, and that was whether they won it or lost it, because the fight had been so worthwhile.

That's the game I like and it involves good people from all the chess pieces.  That's the community working, not some horde of self contained large groups that see map conquest and overpowering with numbers as the only reason to play.  Certainly base taking, etc is a viable part of the game also, but folks need to not lose sight of how they impact on everyone's entertainment, not just their own.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #571 on: April 29, 2009, 07:57:37 AM »
TO a large extent, I actually agree with this....  But then the problem is, with no missions being able to be posted the newer, younger, greener sticks will lose chances at getting involved. 

I say just remove the mission planner option.
You like taking bases?..join a "base taking squad". and so on. What kills me with these mega squads is their need to post public missions.  Advertising that you need to roll with the #s in order to get anything accomplished is what gives people bad habbits.
 Im still learning how to take up certain rides and Ive learned more in the past 4 months of not flying with the horde than I have learned the previous 2 years of flying with the horde.
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline DREDger

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 766
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #572 on: April 29, 2009, 08:44:30 AM »
I say just remove the mission planner option.
You like taking bases?..join a "base taking squad". and so on. What kills me with these mega squads is their need to post public missions.  Advertising that you need to roll with the #s in order to get anything accomplished is what gives people bad habbits.
 Im still learning how to take up certain rides and Ive learned more in the past 4 months of not flying with the horde than I have learned the previous 2 years of flying with the horde.

Bad idea IMO, missions are fun.  A good mission planner can educate new players on organized play, ie what hangers are what, tactics, etc. 

Usually you do have to roll with numbers to get anything done, that is the nature of the game.  One plane cannot reduce a town.  4 110's and a goon can capture a town, but not when a single LA-7 comes screaming out and goes right for the goon.

A medium field has 4 fh, 3 bh and 1 vh, that is 7 hangers needed to be closed to prevent the 'defense' horde from upping IL-2's en masse.  Of those 7 hangers, how many will be killed by ack or miss the target, not to mention at least one goon needed to capture after the town is reduced.

Suppose you have a good gaggle of heavy 47's headed for target.  One fighter with altitude can disrupt the whole affair, just B&Z and pick them off one by one, so you need escorts to protect the Jabo's.

There are alot of components to this game.  To call players who group together as just a 'horde' is a gross oversimplification.  Not to mention it is merely a different style than other players like, ie the 1 vs 1 duel.

Offline FiLtH

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6448
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #573 on: April 29, 2009, 09:03:30 AM »
  The problem with the numbers is the lack of attrition. No matter how good you are, and how many you kill, the enemy can just reup at the target where your guys have to come from a sector away. Thats what makes it neccessary to hord a base if you want to take it. If there was a way to dent reupping at a field you just died at, it would make it so you could defeat the defenders, and they would have to up from the next base back if they die.

~AoM~

Offline Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #574 on: April 29, 2009, 09:07:46 AM »
Bad idea IMO, missions are fun.  A good mission planner can educate new players on organized play, ie what hangers are what, tactics, etc. 

Usually you do have to roll with numbers to get anything done, that is the nature of the game.  One plane cannot reduce a town.  4 110's and a goon can capture a town, but not when a single LA-7 comes screaming out and goes right for the goon.

A medium field has 4 fh, 3 bh and 1 vh, that is 7 hangers needed to be closed to prevent the 'defense' horde from upping IL-2's en masse.  Of those 7 hangers, how many will be killed by ack or miss the target, not to mention at least one goon needed to capture after the town is reduced.

Suppose you have a good gaggle of heavy 47's headed for target.  One fighter with altitude can disrupt the whole affair, just B&Z and pick them off one by one, so you need escorts to protect the Jabo's.

There are alot of components to this game.  To call players who group together as just a 'horde' is a gross oversimplification.  Not to mention it is merely a different style than other players like, ie the 1 vs 1 duel.

But but but Dredger, are you not going to submit to the collective?!

btw, totally agree with you.

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #575 on: April 29, 2009, 09:19:26 AM »
<S> FiLtH    

  The problem with the numbers is the lack of attrition. No matter how good you are, and how many you kill, the enemy can just reup at the target where your guys have to come from a sector away. Thats what makes it neccessary to hord a base if you want to take it.

Signed,
The guy that has a 15 minute drive back to your base after death or dart.
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #576 on: April 29, 2009, 10:29:23 AM »
Wrong... It's just one more instance of people going for the path of least resistance.. In Filth's pretty vague example, you could do without a horde by keeping good coordination with the rest of the effort.. Don't fly yourself to bingo fuel or ammo right next to their runways without someone to replace you.  Of course this means you have to communicate and agree on a plan with other players, which is - nine times out of ten - too much to ask.
Quote
If there was a way to dent reupping at a field you just died at, it would make it so you could defeat the defenders, and they would have to up from the next base back if they die.
If it's so important, you can cap the field.  Take out the VH(s) and vulch it. One cannon fighter can take out about three rollers. This isn't news to anyone...
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Crash Orange

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #577 on: April 29, 2009, 10:45:00 AM »
OK Falcon, look at it from the other side. You log on on a Saturday and the only fight going is this horde rolling base after base. Your out numbered 3 or 4 to 1

Why is that the only fight? If it's the only fight, why are you outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1? What are the rest of your guys doing? What are the rest of their guys doing?

Honestly, when is the last time you logged on to either LW arena on a weekend afternoon or evening and out of 100 or 150 guys with either one of the other countries all but 5 of them were flying the same missions with the same "horde"? When was the last time you saw a 100-plane mission, or even 50?

I just don't think the problems you continually gripe about have any relation to reality. How can 20 guys out of 2-300 completely dominate a map so there are NO other fights going on? It defies reason.

The biggest "hordes" I see during regular hours aren't missions or big squads, they're the 50-plane furballs that tend to build up at 1 or 2 bases on each border. That has nothing to do with squads or organized missions, and the squads who like to run NOE missions generally avoid them.

(We're not talking about after 3 a.m. Eastern on weeknights, either. The screen shot DMBEAR was complaining about yesterday was at 4 a.m. in the less-populated arena, 90% of the people on were in the other. Hard to ruin everybody's fun when nobody else is in the arena...)

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17571
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #578 on: April 29, 2009, 09:28:52 PM »
Why is that the only fight? If it's the only fight, why are you outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1? What are the rest of your guys doing? What are the rest of their guys doing?

Because it was a situation that I was setting up to show him what it looks like from the other side. Had you left the rest of the quote in there it would have also had where I said yes you could start another fight, but the point of the matter is there is no need for the "horde" type missions. If you happen to have 25 guys attack a base that has people there already to insure you USE everyone, or attach a couple bases and get two fights going at once.

The idea of a "GAME" is for everyone playing to have fun.

Offline StokesAk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3665
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #579 on: April 29, 2009, 09:31:46 PM »
The idea of a "GAME" is for everyone playing to have fun.

Very True, and if somebody has fun taking bases and if someone else has fun furballing your gonna have to deal with it.
Strokes

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #580 on: April 29, 2009, 09:46:27 PM »
Ok, new setup for the MAs. StokesAK as only bish trying to furball/base-take, while 300 bishrook base-take/furball bish bases.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline mechanic

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11265
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #581 on: April 29, 2009, 10:06:20 PM »
Only if we can change the name from Bishops to Stokesland and they dont count for knights ENY calculation.
And I don't know much, but I do know this. With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.

Offline StokesAk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3665
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #582 on: April 29, 2009, 10:39:48 PM »
 :rofl Free 262's I would be perfectly fine with the idea.
Strokes

Offline Crash Orange

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #583 on: April 29, 2009, 11:39:36 PM »
Because it was a situation that I was setting up to show him what it looks like from the other side.

In other words, it was a hypothetical situation that can and will never actually exist. Exactly what I was saying. It won't ever actually look like that from the other side, because it can't ever happen.

If my style of play has the potential to ruin everybody else's fun, but only under circumstances that can never actually happen, that's not going to make me lose any sleep.

Had you left the rest of the quote in there it would have also had where I said yes you could start another fight, but the point of the matter is there is no need for the "horde" type missions.

But that's not the point you claimed you were making. You say you're demonstrating that that style of play ruins everyone else's fun. Saying there's no NEED for "hordes" does not show that they ruin everyone else's fun. You fail at logic.

Theres no NEED for 1-1 duels either, but that doesn't mean you're spoiling everybody else's fun if you play that way.

The idea of a "GAME" is for everyone playing to have fun.

That doesn't obligate everyone else to play the way YOU find the most fun, any more than it obligates you to play the way that anyone else finds more fun.

Offline oTRALFZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #584 on: April 30, 2009, 03:39:31 AM »
In other words, it was a hypothetical situation that can and will never actually exist. Exactly what I was saying. It won't ever actually look like that from the other side, because it can't ever happen.

If my style of play has the potential to ruin everybody else's fun, but only under circumstances that can never actually happen, that's not going to make me lose any sleep.

But that's not the point you claimed you were making. You say you're demonstrating that that style of play ruins everyone else's fun. Saying there's no NEED for "hordes" does not show that they ruin everyone else's fun. You fail at logic.

Theres no NEED for 1-1 duels either, but that doesn't mean you're spoiling everybody else's fun if you play that way.

That doesn't obligate everyone else to play the way YOU find the most fun, any more than it obligates you to play the way that anyone else finds more fun.

Noone is telling you or anyone else how to play. You make that decision. The OP started this thread wanting to debate his position on how flying in hordes is affecting game play. Almost 600 replies later and I gaurantee that we havent even dented a change in 99% of the minds of the people that do fly in hordes. They stick to the theory of "its my money".

I am still pretty new, but what I see pretty common here is that its inevitable that no matter what you say or do, it wont change the minds of these guys that love to fly in #s.
Time will always cure this. Eventualy they will get bored flying in those 50 man missions but whats sad is just as they start getting bored, they realize the new guys that flew in their missions are now taking their place.

I could care less about hordes. I have my own option if I want to fight them off or not. Plenty of choices in this game that if I dont like getting ganged at one side of the map, There is plenty of other places I can find fun.
****Let the beatings begin***


in game name: Tralfaz