Jump to content
UnitedOperations

Regular Removal - Gamerofthegame [2012-03-16]

  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. Remove gamerofthegame as a regular?

    • Yes
      26
    • No
      43


Recommended Posts

One thing I had a discussion with a decent sized group of non-regulars this morning on this subject is I feel that what UO looks to be from an outsiders view is more the lines of how ratlover, falcon, militant, and godhand, etc. play. This is what attracted me to UO and ArmA2 as well as several others.

 

My observation with the quality of play dropping (even a noticeable amount within the months I have been here) is that there has been a boom in the number of players within the UO community and there have been no adjustments to SOP, or UOTC schedules, etc. to accommodate the influx of new players who many don't even know formations or what MOUT is. I have been wanting to gather some of the guys who are on in the mornings that are playing Domi to jump on the training servers to do some live fire drills and various things like MOUT (as I feel this is not used in game nearly as much as it should be). As well as proper peel and bounding on contact.

 

UO has not adjusted to its new numbers within the community, and until it finds a way to do so without FORCING players to attend UOTC courses, the level of tactical play (at a UO standards level) will either continue to decrease, or will level off far below what was intended when UO was formed.

 

I would LOVE to play more on a level that GodHand, Falcon, and Ratlover play. However, it is not possible to do that by myself. It takes more than one man to play on that level. Without the entire FT (at a minimum) being on that same level, it will not happen. This is (in my opinion) the biggest thing "dragging down" the UO quality of play.

 

Just my 2 cents!

 

Not to say, "you're just saying what I was saying" - not at all - but this does echo some of what I've been saying, and goes to show that Regulars and less-recent members should acknowledge at least some kind of responsibility to not give new people the wrong impression. They are routinely given the wrong impression, though, and it's gone on through quite a few "booms" in population.

 

Some of our UOTC instructors are in Europe, at least, the currently more active ones are except for Upchuck. So, times are a tricky thing. Not everyone can make them so easily. But, the bad thing is this:

 

They schedule the classes, and too often maybe three people show up while the server has 20+ people on it. We have people who actually argue against the use of fireteams because they give in to how much easier and myopic it is to just tactical blob everything. It should be obvious that there is a sizeable number of people who do not care about UO for what UO is.

Share this post


Link to post

How does it mean no factions? As long as the "faction" doesn't supply special priveleges, powers, protections, or exemptions from the Charter to their members in UO, theres no wording in place to stop factions from happening. Case in point: UOAF.

 

Also, rat, there is also a post longer than Gamer's outlining why the poster believes he should be removed. Why didn't he get told to spend his effort on UOTC courses instead? (no offense intended, just pointing it out).

 

CRO! Go spend some time creating stuff for UOTC.

 

I've been working on something like that, but it's more to hopefully convince people about what OU is and why they would benefit from the courses. Sort of an orientation. Thing is, I'm trying to figure out how to make it concise while also making the points I want to make, so their eyes don't melt.

Share this post


Link to post

My, look how good you are at finding a list of things someone did wrong in order to make him look like just an awful member!

 

I can do the opposite.

 

. . . .

 

Okay, that last one was a joke, but you can see my point. Looking through his posts, I was overwhelmed with how much of a decent guy he seemed to be, compared to how awfully you painted him to be with your cherry picked post, bordering on pedantry at times.

 

That is cool of you to do. Being peaceable and reasonable as he can be, as well as seeing both sides of some issues - something some people are very rarely capable of - does not, to me, overrule all my points. Key words: to me. See, while doing the things I remember and advocating a position I think is in opposition to the principles UO is founded on, he toes the line of acceptability enough to get by. That's not enough to me. I think the negative outweighs the positive.

 

As I said to someone else, if we had in-game video and TS recordings, this would be quite a bit more clear. I deliberately did not tell all the stories of having Gamer in my squad and other events on the servers. Anyway, I've already said before - odd and unbelievable as it may seem - I don't even dislike Gamer as a person. His actions here, to me, do not show actual support or agreement with what UO. If he has improved, it had to be quite recently, and it would take some time and some very clear changes for me to be convinced. As it is, I'm skeptical. Of course, I want to be proven wrong because that would be the best outcome.

 

Regarding cherry picking - when making an argument, you don't always defeat your own argument by equivocating and providing counter-examples. That's how to argue badly. If only you could see into my memory of Gamer's actions over time, you'd say, too bad you're forced to only check the forums for some kind of evidence to tie into your points. I have long been past the point of an evaluation of Gamer in the positive and negative. If you didn't notice, the people voting no here didn't say a damn thing he does wrong because they are intending to provide support. It's normal. It's advocation. Do I think almost all of them are leaving stuff out? Oh, yes indeed. There is no enforceable reason for them to have to testify against him, though.

 

See what I'm getting at? I believe your criticism is in error with regard to the nature of debate. I also suspect you missed my point in some of what I said. It wasn't that he didn't have what I thought was the "correct opinion", it's that I think his statements, taken together, show negligence and opposition to UO's principles. His actions, in my personal experience with him on the server, long ago proved that to me in spades.

 

I guess I couldn't really avoid sounding like I think Gamer is some kind of awful person, but this is all about him and UO. I do not agree that he is some kind of awful person. He can be a good guy, but that is not what this is about. A person can be kind and mean well and still have a negative effect on some goal or endeavor because they have their own ideas about its direction. Not an uncommon thing.

 

As far as being pedantic, well, I was obviously motivated to provide some kind of evidence, and I hoped people would see what I was getting at. Again, if we had all the video and TS footage I wish we had, I wouldn't have had to say much at all. So, being left with forum quotes from someone who commonly does small bad things while doing just enough good things to maintain acceptability, I can see how it would seem pedantic.

Share this post


Link to post

do you guys think if Gamer wasn't a regular, and he'd have to put up a poll to become one now, do you guys think that it would pass?

 

If you actively participate in politics, there's going to be a group of people that dislike you. Gamer is active in community discussions and by expressing his opinions he has made enemies. This is why judges do not have to re elected/ re confirmed, they don't need to fear losing their status just because they think for themselves and refuse to appease others.

 

 

Going by the current vote status, gamer isnt getting removed with a 2/3 majority saying no. That equates to being passed as a regular.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

[Edit] Wherever I've put [edit] is something I went back and wrote after talking with Zzez and Mark and a few others Saturday morning here. I'd written all of this before talking to them. We discussed a lot of stuff, was good, mostly cleared up how I misunderstood Zzez's comment and how he misunderstood Falcon's comment. I wish I could remember the whole conversation right now, but that part of my brain is not working and I'll probably just make a new thread for discussion of certain things soon because a lot of this could obviously be branched off. I'm posting this because I'd already written the reply and forgot to post it before going to sleep. I don't want to re-write the whole thing, but there would only be a few modifications and altered distinctions.

 

I would like more people to read and understand this, please talk to each other on teamspeak instead of forum flame wars, teamspeak has 1 element that lets us realize that theres another person on the other side - voice, on the forums we are not talking to each other we are typing to the text which causes allot of miscommunication and errors, this could have gone on to be a 10-page back and forth argument on the forums but instead we solved the issue on teamspeak in about 40 minutes of talking to each other and understanding the other's point of view.

 

Personally I am waiting for your thread, I also have a wall of text thats sitting in my mind regarding UO's state and how we can move ahead.

Share this post


Link to post

i remember being able to come on the server and as a teamleader just ask for a team line and it would happen in seconds, as well as 360 security. this is almost impossibe to enforce anymore.

 

Actuallly I would agree with this a couple a months ago but after a couple of missions in the last two weeks I have to say that the tactical aspect is coming back.

Most of the time you will find me in a SL or FTL slot and a few weeks ago I still became frustrated because nobody listened or didn't understand how to do specific tasks.

However 2 weeks ago I played 5 missions (one evening) and everytime I had an excellent FT or squad. This even made me step up as a 2IC in the smaller (CO-30) missions.

 

But godhand you still have a point. When I started here in february 2011 I was amazed how people played here. Because I had no military experience (yet, going to join army in november) I attended as much courses as possible. We could prevent this decrease in tactical skills by making the famil course mandatory (and I know this will not happen).

I think yaxxo mentioned it in a thread. He said that they (UOTC) are organizing almost no courses anymore because nobody joins.

 

And as boon said godhand is one of the most respected persons in this community. From my point of view he is the only commander where I

could take a SL of FTL slot and know that I would be a better commander at the end of the mission. Seriously I now start asking ROE or platoon formations

at my CO (ask bloodbane :laugh: ) instead of just running to my BOF and start shooting everything.

Godhand made me a better commander and he is the reason I am currently applying for a section leader training course in the army.

Share this post


Link to post
No, I am not. I am saying that I don't thrust myself into the sort of tactical play that people such as Ratlover or Falcon do; the play that is basically ripped straight from reality. I instead follow the path that the vast majority of regulars, if not striaght up players, do and, if I recall correctly, the one you do yourself; A simplified method, with the usual way points and what not that you find.

 

You just confirmed what I have been hoping to convince people of. You care more about your own idea of how things should be on the server than what UO is about, and you and that alleged vast majority don't care if you're wrong or if you make things difficult here. UO isn't a hardcore milsim community, and never was. There is supposed to be the option for more serious gameplay to happen sometimes, but the status quo was never what we'd call "heavy milsim". It was a balance. What you have now basically admitted you do not understand just proves you don't even care where you are. It's a server where you can try and make things go your own way, and you're not alone, so you all just hold UO in disregard while having fun your way. UO is Burger King. Thanks everyone.

 

Also, I don't opt for a simplified method because that's what I want or what I intend. I just use what I know and I try to add to it all the time to get better, so my method becomes less simplified. I don't want to be stuck not knowing certain things, and I am fucking dying for more people to adopt actually sound methods so I'm not trying in a vacuum to implement things I've learned, which makes it extremely hard to bring to a point of working knowledge, i.e. second nature. I question whether you and others want to move beyond your idea of a simplified method.

 

Moving beyond it certainly doesn't mean you're suddenly doing hardcore milsim. It might just mean you don't die as much or get other people killed as much. You have to actually want to apply tactics in such a way that you can survive and the enemy cannot.

 

 

For example; I am actually okay with people taking a chinook in Second Sun if there is no pilot, flying out to friendlies and bailing out of the chopper to rejoin them, as it respawns and there really is no means to get to the AO. That's just my opinion.

 

. . .

 

 

I do not follow some people's princples of UO, it's true. I strive to push for a community that is enjoyable for everyone - The majority of people aren't heavily into the heavy milsim environment. That's a fact. I would like to say that I am fighting against from pushing the server straight up in that direction. I still strive for tactical play, the sort of level that most people actually do on the server. I am not pushing for anything more and definately not anything less, contrary to your own opinion.

 

What you are calling "some peoples'" principles of UO are the principles of UO. Those people are also some of the founders of UO.

 

What you actually disagree with is their command style - which also seems to be what you are calling "some peoples' principles of UO". Then, when they aren't even on the server, you still make sure to uphold lower standards as a reaction to them. Those you are calling "some people" are your excuse.

 

In your erroneous reasoning you have irrationally justified your intentions in acting against them, and, much worse, you have ended up acting against the principles of UO and in bad faith of the requirements of Regularship.

 

You have actually admitted to fighting against the server having standards too high. You have confessed an intention to use your position to act against other Regulars and their efforts, and, if you ask me, since you say you are "fighting" that, you are acting to contravene the UO Charter.

 

No wonder you think about people here as "pretend soldiers" and "pretentious pricks."

 

You should not be a Regular. You do not deserve the legitimacy of being a Regular, and you do not deserve the influence any Regular may have when new people come here and interact in the community.

 

People who do what you do act against UO's founding principles. Other people here share the irrational reasoning you've conveniently laid out for us, and some of them use that same excuse. You all end up making it difficult to maintain standards on the servers in such a way that we can join and not have people derping or arguing with us. We don't want constant, strictly hardcore milsim in which no one can have any fun. For fuck's suck, don't you all remember the Stalin Bus and Gundam Nauticus? Oh, but "those people" are too serious. Gotta fight back against them!

 

I hope our Regulars and members will no longer buy into this utter and complete bullshit that we are wanting "heavy milsim" or standards too high when we just want to act using actual tactics. Those tactics are simply sound, proven methods.

 

Most new people who come here see the videos and want to experience that and take part in it, but they end up in a community where people are actively undermining UO's standards on the server. Regulars and our truly considerate members want to get on the server and not be argued with, or subtly or openly undermined, as we try and uphold some standard of gameplay on the server in accord with UO's principles as stated in the Charter.

 

I ask that those who previously voted no to exercise rational judgment more than emotions and consider changing your votes in light of what Gamer has now said.

Share this post


Link to post

If this is simply a personality conflict then wasting the community’s time with this thread is wrong.

 

If the removal of Regular status is based on egregious actions then prove it. I will never vote to remove Regular status from a player without documented “bans” that demonstrate a continuing harmful pattern without remorse. Without a Regular first being warned by “Banning” it seems premature to strip Regular status.

 

As a Forum moderator I am also concern about the tone of Regular Removal threads. Too much drama and e-swagger. I believe these threads should be under the same rules as Ban threads… all posts require approval.

 

 

nb. Larger text for older Regulars

Share this post


Link to post

As a Forum moderator I am also concern about the tone of Regular Removal threads. Too much drama and e-swagger. I believe these threads should be under the same rules as Ban threads… all posts require approval.

^^ this

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

For the sarcasm part I was referring to what Evan posted, I believe.

 

Most of the time he actually spends on the server is when none to little regulars are on. He's usually on with a lot of non-regulars. I just think during this time he controls the population and contributes to a level of game play that is well above what it would be if he didn't. He's also normally the public admin during the time and gets things going fairly quickly after seeding. I just wanted to make this point because many regulars do not actually see this happen, while I, and others, do.

Share this post


Link to post

1.2 - No member of the community shall be granted privileges, powers, protections, exemptions or otherwise receive special treatments which exceed those held or available in common. No member shall willfully act or conspire to supplant the rule of the charter.

 

How does that = factions?

 

 

[5:57:54 PM] CD (Nou): should just say fuck it and start making IHS style platoon ops, just make it permanent

[5:58:07 PM] beta: main change being: 4 sections + plt hq, drop the weapons det

[5:58:14 PM] beta: have each sect go through plt weapons trng

[5:58:23 PM] beta: and they are assigned to plt weapons per mission

[5:58:29 PM] Evan (ACOG): nothing stopping IHS's, surprised it hasn't began anew

[5:58:30 PM] CD (Nou): let it breed from there and stand up more platoons

[5:58:38 PM] beta: it would make scheduling trng and keeping them active like 100x easier

[5:58:46 PM] herbiie1: Teach everyone basics first yeah Beta

[5:58:49 PM] CD (Nou): make it the "cool thing"

[5:58:56 PM] beta: the other major change i would like to see is a more fluid trng enviro

[5:58:58 PM] CD (Nou): so people come to UO and want to join an IHS

[5:59:07 PM] herbiie1: [5:58 PM] CD (Nou):

<<< let it breed from there and stand up more platoonsThen could have comepetitions

[5:59:13 PM] beta: you do your shit on a sect attack, do a few dry runs, ones with targets, then ones with OPFOR

[5:59:15 PM] herbiie1: Btw what's IHS?

[5:59:19 PM] CD (Nou): in house squad

[5:59:22 PM] CD (Nou): its a term from TG

[5:59:22 PM] herbiie1: Ah ok

[5:59:36 PM] CD (Nou): basically a mini-clan within UO

[5:59:42 PM] beta: well, my plan nou was to basically make it something akin to the current UOAF

[5:59:46 PM] herbiie1: Might get complaints about factions

[5:59:50 PM] beta: except with a more rigid structure

[5:59:51 PM] CD (Nou): nope

[5:59:55 PM] CD (Nou): factions is no longer in the charter

[5:59:57 PM] CD (Nou): :)

[5:59:58 PM] beta: nah, that has been solved

[6:00:03 PM] herbiie1: Ah cool

[6:00:04 PM] Robert Sandiford: since when did the charter matter? :)

[6:00:09 PM] herbiie1: Lol Sandi

[6:00:13 PM] beta: and that was never a problem (speaking with the writer of that statement)

[6:00:14 PM] Evan (ACOG): that was a while ago </hipster>

[6:00:16 PM] CD (Nou): oh here is sandi to derail the topic

[6:00:16 PM] godhand_25: well i would be cool with us setting up a mini clan

[6:00:21 PM] Robert Sandiford: UO is totally mature, professional and courteous right?

[6:00:27 PM] Robert Sandiford: :)

[6:00:29 PM] CD (Nou): go away sandi

[6:00:33 PM] Robert Sandiford: i'll go now, just found that funny

[6:00:51 PM] beta: yeah godhand, i basically want to make a platoon that sticks

[6:01:06 PM] beta: another fairly simple idea could be having multiple of those organizations

[6:01:10 PM] beta: of different sizes

[6:01:18 PM] beta: ie: 21 plt, your standard plt

[10:02:06 PM] CroMagnon: [5:59 PM] beta:

<<< well, my plan nou was to basically make it something akin to the current UOAFThat would be far better than going back to IHS's. In-house squads would be formed by immature players for stupid reasons, with stupid purposes. Or, with no purposes. Simply because one group made an IHS, those people would make one just because it's a new thing, and they would start trying to recruit any new person who would derp with them.

[10:02:34 PM] CD (Nou): well my vision of IHS is some overview, maybe under the guise of UOTC

[10:02:47 PM] CD (Nou): in that IHS need to have a purpose

[10:02:53 PM] CD (Nou): and not just be a club

[10:03:31 PM] CD (Nou): maybe standing up a IHS would be subject to vote? im not sure

[10:03:34 PM] CD (Nou): some sort of method of control

[10:03:55 PM] CD (Nou): to prevent shit like omega-esque crap filled with h3s

[10:03:59 PM] CD (Nou): no offense h3

[10:03:59 PM] CD (Nou): :P

[10:04:57 PM] C.Rody: Nou

[10:05:04 PM] C.Rody: ;D

[10:05:07 PM] C.Rody: I still love you

[10:05:26 PM] C.Rody: And I will admit, I was VERY immature when I was in omega

[10:06:09 PM] C.Rody: Tho, how exactly was the factions thing removed?

[10:06:20 PM] CD (Nou): by vote

[10:06:23 PM] CD (Nou): changed the wording

[10:06:26 PM] C.Rody: I see

[10:06:42 PM] CD (Nou): now it just states that no group shall be given preferential treatment

[10:06:50 PM] C.Rody: Hmm

[10:06:55 PM] CD (Nou): and no group should organize to influence voting

[10:07:04 PM] CD (Nou): though thats rather impossible to enforce imo

[10:07:08 PM] C.Rody: Which, you can't really enforce

[10:07:11 PM] C.Rody: Yeah

[10:07:25 PM] C.Rody: I guess this can be good and bad

[10:08:46 PM] C.Rody: Technically, people have already factionalized

[10:08:53 PM] C.Rody: Just not directly within UO

[10:22:21 PM] CroMagnon: [10:02 PM] CD (Nou):

<<< well my vision of IHS is some overview, maybe under the guise of UOTCThat sounds better. More just "part of UO".

[10:23:00 PM] CroMagnon: But, then, you don't even need the concept of an IHS.

[10:23:31 PM] CD (Nou): well they'd be organized, named, preferably with people commited to just one group at a time

[10:24:30 PM] CroMagnon: YeahIHSIHS

 

 

Really? You had no idea huh?

Share this post


Link to post

I fail to see your point H3, my discussion was with Dack where I assumed (albeit incorrectly) that he was referring to the faction clause which has since been removed from the charter. I have stood corrected on that subject and fail to see what a months old skype log has to do with anything pertaining with Gamer's removal poll. If you wish to discuss this with me any further, seek me out on TS.

 

I couldn't care less if people formed their own IHS's so long as it does not violate the rule of the charter (1.2).

 

Anyways, back on topic: Cromag, I think you have put into words exactly what needed to be said. BZ sir.

Share this post


Link to post

1.2 - No member of the community shall be granted privileges, powers, protections, exemptions or otherwise receive special treatments which exceed those held or available in common. No member shall willfully act or conspire to supplant the rule of the charter.

 

How does that = factions?

Your original statement implies that Factions are not allowed in UO at all.

Misunderstood you then Dack, Thought you mean the literal definition of faction which was removed from the charter. Yes there are factions within UO, it would be impossible for there not to be.

State that factions exist. And they are perfectly fine to be here.

 

Can't see my point? Sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Huh. I've had a small paper written on me, negatively.

 

Odd.

 

Anyway, Cro, you're wrong, I'm afraid. You are saying things over and over again that are simply not true. You are perceiving me differently from reality, for whatever reason. Which is especially a shame, as you felt the need to type of volumes on how I am apparently destroying UO.

 

Yes, I prompt for lower standards, or rather a maximum limit. I do not like heavy MilSim. You want to know why? It's very simple; The moment you go heavy milsim, you lose your audience. Why? Because people don't know what's going on. That isn't even my opinion in this case, this is fact; Whenever someone such as Falcon or Ratlover* leads and goes the heavy milsim route, people get lost and confused. Commonly when a heavy milsim environment is being done a leader in whatever I am doing asks what the hell some military jargon means and I have to tell them, usually in a simplified manner such as "It basically means you go there and wait - a FUP" or something. Or sometimes they don't ask and simply don't know, getting lost. And I am not talking about things like way points and similar "general" and common elements, but things like the military acronyms that mean "What's your status?" or other elements of jargon.

 

*(Nothing against you guys, mind, but you two are a ready example everyone can acknowledge.)

 

That is what I am against. It adds to immersion, yes, but it turns out that it is detrimental to our tactical gameplay because people don't understand what they're being told. Remember that the majority of the players are likely going to be fourteen or over with no military experience outside of ye vidja games. Entirely civilian.

 

I am not against tactical gameplay. I am not advocating for no COs, no plans or something like that. I am one of the first to jump on people for wandering away from their squad and so on. I try to gently nudge what is the lower scale of "quality", such as what you find in unorganized missions, to your more standard UO affair at the least. I am not against the principles of UO, if anything I am furthering it by trying to keep it accessible to as many people as possible so they can actually do it.

 

Apparently, Cro, you are in the belief that I am among the people that ought to be banned from the server - You are describing that I am doing actions such as leaving my squad, disobeying command and other such things... Which... Simply isn't the case, obviously. Otherwise I would be banned! And, you know, given my active state on the server, everyone would know about it instead of all the statements as otherwise. Further more, you are taking a very slippery slope argument that because I advocate against the very "best" (In this case, heavy milsim) and thus I am obviously saying that we should have nothing at all and am attempting to destroy everything.

 

You don't have to like me, I don't really want to be liked by everyone. That would mean something strange is going on.

 

However, you can't say that I am doing something against the community, while in the same breath my inbox is filled with messages to mission makers when something goes wrong in a mission, as well as when I am helping people in general, discussing topics with a attempt at a open mind and upholding the principles of UO's tactical gameplay when there is no one else to do so. I am as active as I can manage in game as well as on the forums.

 

I would like to say, though I am undoubtedly biased, that I am the shining example of what a regular should be. You may not agree with me, lordy knows that has recently been a thing among people on whether or not you should be a regular then, but I am not against the principles of UO.

 

 

 

Now then, as a additional note; This removal is nothing particularly deep. It isn't about factionism, it isn't even about standards or something. In this case, the person who put this up doesn't care much for me, which is fairly mutual. Please stop bringing that up and thinking it is, outside of people making it that way.

 

Most of the polls of some sort in the past few months have been bringing up outside discussion into it, which is immediately forgotten and thrown away when the poll ends. What goes on in the discussion even has shown to influence people on the poll as well, even when the discussion isn't even related or relevant to the subject. Usually it's in a negative way. Please take this into a different thread.

 

Lookin' at you, factionism.

Share this post


Link to post

H3

Evan

everyone else debating the faction BS keep it out of this guys thread. Do right by this process and make a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post

well gamer where i feel you are very much wrong is the fact that you want to make it more acsesible. i personally feel that i you want to play using realistic tactics then you should have expectations. In UO we should be able to expect a new member to st down and either read through the UO tactics primer we have in the UOTC suforum, or sit down and watch a couple of the courses we have recorded, so they can go in game and the TL can expect them to know what a arc of fire is and what the formations are and why they are used, furthermore we should expect them to know their job within their fire team, so the AR knows what supreesion is and that it is his job to provide.

 

you argument that the majority of the players are 14 is invalid since this communty is supposed to be a mature communty, i hold no expectation age wise, but i do expect players mature enough to sit down and gain a understanding of the roles they are supposed to fullfill. im not expecting them to understand platoon level tactics before they enter the server, but i expect a fireteam member that knows what he is supposed to do in theroy. i then expect a player who wants to SL, PL or other advanced stuff to study the job. i expect a SL to know platoon level tactics and understand that his squad must work with others, i expect a FO to understand not only giving a grid, but to understand how the arty works and the PL's plan so he can actually support the platoon effectively.

 

what you are saying is that it is ok to slot into the server without any understanding of your job, and without consequense. this should never be an expectation in a tactical communty, and the means to learn all of this are on the forums and on youtube so there are no excuses for not trying to understand, and if there is something you dont understand you should be able to approach a regular and get a more usefull response than "It basically means you go there and wait"

 

about prowords it is obvious you do not even understand what they are supposed to do, prowords like formation names, SBF, FUP, phase line, RV, sitrep etc. are there for the sole purpose of making the leaders lives easier, so you can quickly gain an understanding of what other units are doing.

an example: if the platoon leader didnt have the option of using the word Phaseline then the proword would be: " we are at the line we are nt supposed to cross without permission" a SBF would be: "the place where we should look for enemies and shoot at them" you see what im getting at?

 

in a tactical communty you should play to win, and not only win but win with minimal casulties, otherwise your community are just using the word tactical as a fluff word since it adds no real meaning.

 

all of this should also be summed up by my signature

Share this post


Link to post

well gamer where i feel you are very much wrong is the fact that you want to make it more acsesible. i personally feel that i you want to play using realistic tactics then you should have expectations. In UO we should be able to expect a new member to st down and either read through the UO tactics primer we have in the UOTC suforum, or sit down and watch a couple of the courses we have recorded, so they can go in game and the TL can expect them to know what a arc of fire is and what the formations are and why they are used, furthermore we should expect them to know their job within their fire team, so the AR knows what supreesion is and that it is his job to provide.

 

you argument that the majority of the players are 14 is invalid since this communty is supposed to be a mature communty, i hold no expectation age wise, but i do expect players mature enough to sit down and gain a understanding of the roles they are supposed to fullfill. im not expecting them to understand platoon level tactics before they enter the server, but i expect a fireteam member that knows what he is supposed to do in theroy. i then expect a player who wants to SL, PL or other advanced stuff to study the job. i expect a SL to know platoon level tactics and understand that his squad must work with others, i expect a FO to understand not only giving a grid, but to understand how the arty works and the PL's plan so he can actually support the platoon effectively.

Godhand, these hopes are great on paper, and we would all like that, but like most things it's not true. People don't spend 2 hours looking at UOTC training videos or 20 minutes reading something, even if it is informative and helps the fluidity of gameplay. Most people want to get in and blow stuff up, in fact, I would bet that most new players aren't reading any literature that we have on this site and maybe not even 1 UOTC video before jumping in game, and there should be nothing wrong with that.

 

We should expect new players to be noobies, because, well, they are new. We should be a helpful community that directs them and helps them in a nice and friendly manner to learn the ropes of the game. We shouldn't scold new players, or tell them, "Watch the UOTC videos" when they ask a question. You should expect them to know nothing.

 

I believe this is what Gamer is talking about, and I believe this is the reality of the situation.

 

what you are saying is that it is ok to slot into the server without any understanding of your job, and without consequense. this should never be an expectation in a tactical communty, and the means to learn all of this are on the forums and on youtube so there are no excuses for not trying to understand, and if there is something you dont understand you should be able to approach a regular and get a more usefull response than "It basically means you go there and wait"

 

about prowords it is obvious you do not even understand what they are supposed to do, prowords like formation names, SBF, FUP, phase line, RV, sitrep etc. are there for the sole purpose of making the leaders lives easier, so you can quickly gain an understanding of what other units are doing.

an example: if the platoon leader didnt have the option of using the word Phaseline then the proword would be: " we are at the line we are nt supposed to cross without permission" a SBF would be: "the place where we should look for enemies and shoot at them" you see what im getting at?

He is not saying it is okay to slot in a server without knowledge of how to be an SL or a pilot, he never said that at all. He said that people are going to join the server during a more milsim game, ask a lot of questions, and get overwhelmed and confused at the insane amount of military jargon, complex formations, and basic controls. Telling them a FUP is a go there and wait is perfect for someone trying to understand it.

 

in a tactical communty you should play to win, and not only win but win with minimal casulties, otherwise your community are just using the word tactical as a fluff word since it adds no real meaning.

 

all of this should also be summed up by my signature

We are not here to win, we are here to have fun. We are here to enjoy our time in game, to make friends, to be a community. Thinking that has no basis of regular removal. Having an opinion on style of play and approachment to new players has no basis of regular removal.

Share this post


Link to post

No dylan you are wrong. we are here for

 

United Operations is hereby established to serve as a community for fostering teamwork, simulation and cooperation in gaming. We are a mature community bound by a set of common principles:

opening line of the charter. Key word simulation, if we are simulating real life do they not try and win?

Share this post


Link to post

No dylan you are wrong. we are here for

 

United Operations is hereby established to serve as a community for fostering teamwork, simulation and cooperation in gaming. We are a mature community bound by a set of common principles:

opening line of the charter. Key word simulation, if we are simulating real life do they not try and win?

My bad, I figured it was just implied that we are here to work as a team. ArmA 2 is a military sim game, so obviously there is that objective to win a game, but it doesn't run our servers. What makes people want to come here (I think) and makes me want to continue playing is the community. The people, the fun we have in game, the interesting and cool missions, and the friends I've made. Sure, winning is nice, but I don't think it's the force that drives the community.

 

There is always that tactical gameplay, always. That is why we are all here.

Share this post


Link to post

Dylan, if a new guy joins in and just wants to blow stuff up, this is not the place for him, he should look in to finding a different community. The style of gameplay that this community is based on requires training and learning, you say that people don't want that? That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the gameplay, that means there's something wrong with them, becuase they're in the wrong community.

 

In my eyes, anyone saying that you don't need training, realistical radio procedures or formations is in my eyes deliberately degrading gameplay quality, which is a bannable offense.

Share this post


Link to post

what yaxxo said, this community is not base on "fun" alone. Fun may be TKing the entire team to some people. We are here to simulate real life and play tactically. After further consideration I am voting yes. I feel this is better for the community if this is really the type of play he promotes.

Share this post


Link to post

Dylan, if a new guy joins in and just wants to blow stuff up, this is not the place for him, he should look in to finding a different community. The style of gameplay that this community is based on requires training and learning, you say that people don't want that? That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the gameplay, that means there's something wrong with them, becuase they're in the wrong community.

 

In my eyes, anyone saying that you don't need training, realistical radio procedures or formations is in my eyes deliberately degrading gameplay quality, which is a bannable offense.

I agree with you Yaxxo, maybe I used to wrong choice of words to get my point out too quickly. By blow stuff up I meant someone that wants to skip training and learning the game and launch ArmA 2 and play like he saw on a YouTube gameplay. This is why I see so many new players asking questions, but I feel this isn't a negative thing. It's a growing experience and a learning one, and it's something I went through myself before we had UOTC videos.

 

Please don't skew my words, or my interpretation of what Gamer said or what he said specifically. I never said that people don't need training. I never said that people should not try to play tactically. I said that people want to go in game and skip all of that, and I feel that is generally the reality of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe this is a thread for voting and discussion to remove or keep gamer as a regular, not to argue definitions. Lets get back on topic and try to be civil!

Share this post


Link to post

If you actively participate in politics, there's going to be a group of people that dislike you. Gamer is active in community discussions and by expressing his opinions he has made enemies. This is why judges do not have to re elected/ re confirmed, they don't need to fear losing their status just because they think for themselves and refuse to appease others.

 

 

Going by the current vote status, gamer isnt getting removed with a 2/3 majority saying no. That equates to being passed as a regular.

actually judges get an up down retainment vote at regular intervals (except supreme court). It's called accountability and it still exists. nothing for or against gamer just saying bad arguing point.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...