Jump to content

Addition of 4.10 to the charter: Barrier of Entry  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Addition of 4.10 to the charter: Barrier of Entry

    • Yes
      65
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

I've said "Frag out" when I hadn't thrown a grenade, should I go report to the ban thread now? This is ridiculous.

 

Voted yes. With some barrier to entry we can ease up with the banhammer and start directing mediocre players through self-improvement methods.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with Mark's statement and I am a Regular, how about that Sealhammer?

 

We will agree to disagree. How much did you pay for that Mozart tag?

Please stop posting in this thread.

 

 

I've said "Frag out" when I hadn't thrown a grenade, should I go report to the ban thread now? This is ridiculous.

 

Voted yes. With some barrier to entry we can ease up with the banhammer and start directing mediocre players through self-improvement methods.

 

People are not banned for not simply meeting UO's standards of play (not referencing rule breaking here).  The only thing that happens to them is that they may be blacklisted and prohibited from taking high level/mission critical slots until they prove (through taking related courses) that they are competent enough to utilize those slots.  Instead, the Barrier of Entry concept actually allows for people to be [temporarily] banned (which doesn't really help easing up with the banhammer) for being incompetent or just lacking knowledge.  However, the system does force people to either seek self-improvement in order to have their ban lifted, or simply remain banned and not play anymore.

Edited by Rich

Share this post


Link to post

Alright then to me it sounded that you blamed all non-regs.

Apologies for my comment.

It's all good. To elaborate, my comments were responding to kalohe's sentiment that no regulars should equal tons of regulars for gameplay purposes.

I can only iterate that regulars got voted in for a reason.

Of course there is a bunch of grey space as well when we consider how many regulars would make the poll today but hey, what is there to do?

Edited by Mark Interiis

Share this post


Link to post

Upon further investigation you will notice that those who are against this proposal are the same people have have issued these bans. What does that tell you?

 

Well I'll take your word on this but rather than some grander conspiracy I'm more of the opinion they might just prefer to ban rather than change the gameplay to reduce the amount of bans necessary.

 

Just addressing this, as I'm assuming you went and looked at the immediate bans. The RPG was requested to be pushed by Dylan, whom I'm pretty sure is not expecting tactical genius from anyone, and it fucked the mission for everyone on the server.

 

I'm not saying either way - just from the ban thread, it certainly looks like he fired an RPG and was banned as of a misfire.  It 'fucked the mission' for everyone but did someone actually die? Or was it just the AI were notified and it ruined the rest of the plan?  This to me is accidental and banning for such an incident is, in my opinion, way over the top.  Again, I wasn't there but from my impression of the ban, it seems like it happened the way I've described.

 

 

 

People are not banned for not simply meeting UO's standards of play (not referencing rule breaking here).  The only thing that happens to them is that they may be blacklisted and prohibited from taking high level/mission critical slots until they prove (through taking related courses) that they are competent enough to utilize those slots.  Instead, the Barrier of Entry concept actually allows for people to be [temporarily] banned (which doesn't really help easing up with the banhammer) for being incompetent or just lacking knowledge.  However, the system does force people to either seek self-improvement in order to have their ban lifted, or simply remain banned and not play anymore.

 

 

Rich, I beg to differ.  People have been banned, just in the last two weeks there have been multiple instances of people being banned for such terrible infractions as yelling 'frag out' as a joke when not actually having thrown a frag, or accidentally crashing a heli/plane in a mission, etc.  This is, plain and simple, banning people for simply not meeting *some people's* standard of play, and would never have happened a year ago at UO.  It would have earned a reprimand, a talking to and blacklisting.  But these people are and will continued to be banned for such small accidental infractions.  Had some regular or 'popular' or 'competent' pilot made the same error I doubt it would have resulted in the same ban at all.

 

EDIT: Basically, the Barrier to Entry should ensure that people receive a level of training and at the same time, not allow the (in my opinion) ridiculous and frivolous types of bans that I have seen lately by allowing a level of training and baseline of competence for all players.

Edited by zenjamin

Share this post


Link to post

Well I'll take your word on this but rather than some grander conspiracy I'm more of the opinion they might just prefer to ban rather than change the gameplay to reduce the amount of bans necessary.

 

 

Alternatively, Dylan just happened to be the Regular present at the time and he felt it was his duty to report such behaviour, but what do I know.

Share this post


Link to post

This is, plain and simple, banning people for simply not meeting *some people's* standard of play, and would never have happened a year ago at UO.  It would have earned a reprimand, a talking to and blacklisting.  But these people are and will continued to be banned for such small accidental infractions.

And maybe the previous laxness is the root of the problem, because without any real consequence the reprimand wasn't having the desired effect? Not necessarily the case, but it's worth a thought.

Share this post


Link to post

Rich, I beg to differ.  People have been banned, just in the last two weeks there have been multiple instances of people being banned for such terrible infractions as yelling 'frag out' as a joke when not actually having thrown a frag, or accidentally crashing a heli/plane in a mission, etc.  This is, plain and simple, banning people for simply not meeting *some people's* standard of play, and would never have happened a year ago at UO.

  • 4.3 - Players shall not intentionally team kill or otherwise disrupt game play.

Intentionally causing panic or accidentally destroying mission critical assets/team killing is covered under 4.3.  They're not being banned for simply "not meeting some people's standard of play," they're being banned for breaking the rules.

Edited by Rich

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm not saying either way - just from the ban thread, it certainly looks like he fired an RPG and was banned as of a misfire.  It 'fucked the mission' for everyone but did someone actually die? Or was it just the AI were notified and it ruined the rest of the plan?  This to me is accidental and banning for such an incident is, in my opinion, way over the top.  Again, I wasn't there but from my impression of the ban, it seems like it happened the way I've described.

Are we really arguing this here?

 

The misfire RPG caused the enemy infantry squads and the Abrams to fire on our platoon killing the whole team almost instantly. The team was not setup to begin the ambush. I will not process NDs unless they seriously disrupt gameplay or ruin the mission for the whole server. In this case, the whole nearly hour long mission was ruined and we could not complete our objective because someone did not press ESC before alt-tabbing.

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO, The community that started with the headiness of a successful revolution full of ideas of openness, freedom and democracy and twenty something players that had played together for a couple of years prior, no longer exists. Somehow striving for recognition led to the numbers game and the slow disappearance of the homey little gaming community of friends we once knew. It has grown so fast that it is mass of players that can not be controlled by the Magna Carta Libertatum drawn up by the founding members. In the case of a gaming community of this size, democracy and leading by committee is beginning to implode upon itself. A board of directors either appointed or elected needs to take a strong hand to get UO back on the track set forth by the founding members, the way it should be, not by what the masses want. There needs to be "The Buck Stops Here" group, otherwise you will get more of what you have now only worse.

Let the stoning begin.

 

 

I would not be opposed to that aside from the fact that those who MOST would want those positions are the ones who are in the "UBER-REALISM" TS3 groups on UO who would LOVE to make it bannable if you made the slightest tactical error or ACE system screwup as a squad member especially if they simply didn't like you.    When I think of the main founders I think of Boondocks, Impulse, and Marvin.   There may be a few others that played key roles, but these guys and those who helped them were the main ones.   If we got back to the original level of gameplay that our little group used to have, then I'd be happy as pie even if we didn't have huge numbers.   That's why BI invented friendly AI.   :)     By the way Chiefboats, we all miss you buddy.   You and Tigger.  Hawkeye's still around by the way.  :)   

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Miles. The few times that I have tried to play I got on TS ingame first and listened for a bit and could not bring myself to enter into the games so full of herp derp and trash talking. I thought I had wandered into an Xbox game full of prepubescents by mistake and decided to never do that again. I don't see any of the guys I used to play with on the servers when I check so I just pass on by. Btw, I do check the forums daily and I am registered in TS even though I don't play here anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Miles. The few times that I have tried to play I got on TS ingame first and listened for a bit and could not bring myself to enter into the games so full of herp derp and trash talking. I thought I had wandered into an Xbox game full of prepubescents by mistake and decided to never do that again. I don't see any of the guys I used to play with on the servers when I check so I just pass on by. Btw, I do check the forums daily and I am registered in TS even though I don't play here anymore.

 

While this might be true during the wee hours, logging on from 1900Z onwards results in good people all around playing. The best playing definitely happens at around 2400Z, though, when most regulars are present, so please, let's try to stay away from hyperbolic statements such as the Xbox analogy.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

I'm very afraid this poll will fail... I still have great hopes with the Barrier of Entry-concept.

Share this post


Link to post

It is my opinion, I don't need you to tell me what I can and cannot say, keep the condescending bullshit to yourself.

Edited by Chiefboats

Share this post


Link to post

Who the fuck are you? You sound like a pompous ass to me, trying to impress with your condescending bullshit. It is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

 

This is goldmine. In any case, keep spitting vitriol and belittling the current playerbase by using blanket statements and generalizations.

Share this post


Link to post

While this might be true during the wee hours, logging on from 1900Z onwards results in good people all around playing. The best playing definitely happens at around 2400Z, though, when most regulars are present, so please, let's try to stay away from hyperbolic statements such as the Xbox analogy.

 

The gameplay should have a high standard at ANY given time, independent of the mission type, size or the number of regulars present.

I have witnessed it alot on the server that people simply dont give a coitus about realism, simulation or tactical play. Many dont have any UOTC courses and just want to rush for the objective to get some kills, which is not directly against the rules and no "bannable offense", but it still can ruin the gameplay for others.

Some time ago there was wonderful 1st class gameplay on this server, people threated each other with alot of respect and you could trust every member of your team and knew they would do their job without the need of babysitting them.

I would prefer playing missions with less people who actually have the same basic soldier skills, instead of playing big missions with many players just standing around, doing the tactical blob or even doing mistakes that cost the virtual life of your team members. You need to be able to trust every member in your team, you have to trust them that they pull security, think with their own head and that there is always somebody watching your back.

 

I think the Barrier of Entry is a great idea and can only improve the gameplay. It gives UOTC the OPTION to set certain standarts, and if they aren't able to work out these documents yet, nothing would really change for now. Its just an option that can raise the quality of gameplay to any standart UOTC sees fit.

Share this post


Link to post

The gameplay should have a high standard at ANY given time, independent of the mission type, size or the number of regulars present.

 

Expectations and reality are two entirely different things. You simply can't realistically expect for  low player count missions, during the early (or super late) hours, when no regulars are present, to be played in the most tactical and by-the-book manner, and the reasons should be pretty obvious. Thus, the enforcement of the BoE will depend entirely on who's policing the server at a given time, which again takes us to the problem that, in either of the two cases, whether this passes or not, policing remains mostly up to Regulars online at that time.

 

I don't think this will improve gameplay per se, because gameplay improves by constant interaction with the playerbase, as proven by the fact that 'derp' rarely ever occurs during prime-time, coincidentially when most regulars and veteran players are online. This just gives everyone enough legal backing to report people for failing to properly implement the expected level of tactical gameplay, which I believe might just turn into a witch hunt instead of actually improving gameplay.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

I thought I would throw my view into the ring, little weight that it carries. 

 

I've been playing on the server off and on for about a year. I stopped playing regularly about 7 or 8 months ago due to work taking me overseas. At that time the quality of play on the server seemed pretty high. There was occasional stupidity and issues but by and large things seemed to rub along okay. About 2 months ago I came back to playing on the server, I found the quality of play did seem lower outside of what is thought of as Prime time, and weekends. As a result I don't think the concept of having a barrier to entry is a particularly bad one as it puts off those who have no real interest in the UO gameplay style from coming on to the server and disrupting everyone else's enjoyment. 

 

I've noticed people occasionally mentioning that some non regulars don't have any of the UOTC courses etc. I am one of those people, I'm 29 years old, ex-RAF, married and have a stressful job. When I come online or boot up the old computer of an evening I do so to have fun and I don't want to spend 90 minutes to two hours of my evening learning what I consider to be the basics of ARMA. However as a mature, responsible player what I did do was jump onto the UO You tube channel and watch the various videos which deal with Radios, ACE and so forth to make sure I didn't come on and run around like a headless chicken. 

 

Equally when I want to work out how to use Mortars or arty or something I will watch the video's then play around with the kit offline. It means I can learn the skills needed to fit into the UO gameplay without needing to sit through an interesting, but time consuming course. 

 

I just thought that was an important point of view as just because some of us have not been to the course, doesn't mean we haven't watched the video or fiddled with the kit offline. I rarely hear people encouraging struggling new players to check out the video's and this surprises me as they cover everything you need to know to get in game and do things right. 

 

Just my thoughts, I'll shut the door on my way out.  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post

Smill thank you for your comment. You are exactly the kind of player we want on the server. Someone willing to learn and adapt to our play style, willing to have fun and not wanting to be bogged down by requirements like a clan. I agree that a small boe is not too much to ask on a player that may have had no experience in previous milism communities or real life.

Edited by fusionpoo

Share this post


Link to post

Would have voted yes if I had not seen Darksides post. Pretty much wrapped up the truth about UO in my mind. More regulars need to come out of their caves and play on the primary more often. If they aren't willing to do so, then they are useless. Granted a few who contribute elsewhere in the community.

Share this post


Link to post

While this might be true during the wee hours, logging on from 1900Z onwards results in good people all around playing. The best playing definitely happens at around 2400Z, though, when most regulars are present, so please, let's try to stay away from hyperbolic statements such as the Xbox analogy.

What you fail to realize is that this is a world wide community.  Those wee hours are my and many others primetime.  Why should it be ok for gameplay to diminish during that time frame?  With this barrier of entry it cuts a clear definition on what  your expected to know and how to act while on the server.

 

If Chief says it crap when he gets on I believe him over you any and every time.

Share this post


Link to post

And maybe the previous laxness is the root of the problem, because without any real consequence the reprimand wasn't having the desired effect? Not necessarily the case, but it's worth a thought.

 

 

While that's a possibility, I'd say more like the previous friendliness, encouragement and supportiveness in the face of mistakes and accidents was the UO I enjoyed - not this draconian 'punish for slightest mistake' era that I personally am seeing.  Again - this is only my opinion and the truth might be completely different to other people, but this is what I've seen as of late, explaining my absence from the server; I no longer see it as a friendly place of learning and tolerance.  I feel that the BoE might go some ways to helping this situation.

 

 

 

  • 4.3 - Players shall not intentionally team kill or otherwise disrupt game play.

Intentionally causing panic or accidentally destroying mission critical assets/team killing is covered under 4.3.  They're not being banned for simply "not meeting some people's standard of play," they're being banned for breaking the rules.

 

 

 

Let's be honest - almost every 'infraction' is covered by the SOP or charter in one interpretation or another.  Without spelling out every scenario in excruciating detail in the SOP/Charter, you can then interpret whatever you want as a 'gameplay disruption' - you could say a 'bad SL' is a gameplay disruption, but who is to say what is a bad SL? Someone who doesn't answer the Long range instantly? Or a 'bad AR' - an AR who doesn't know he's supposed to be on the end of a line or doesn't provide suppressive fire exactly correctly could considered a 'disruption'.  My point is not that they couldn't be banned for such infractions - but more like why should they be banned for these infractions? In the past I would have expected a warning, a talking to or a little bit of a 'well son, do better next time, lets laugh off your stupidity because it's a game and we're all friends here and made that mistake before'.  

 

 

Are we really arguing this here?

 

The misfire RPG caused the enemy infantry squads and the Abrams to fire on our platoon killing the whole team almost instantly. The team was not setup to begin the ambush. I will not process NDs unless they seriously disrupt gameplay or ruin the mission for the whole server. In this case, the whole nearly hour long mission was ruined and we could not complete our objective because someone did not press ESC before alt-tabbing.

 

As I said, I wasn't there and I don't know all the details of the mission.  I don't question your judgement on the matter and I'm definitely not arguing these bans - that's not the point.  Despite what you're saying, I still feel like a year ago an actual ban would not have been levelled at such an infraction.  Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but subjectively, from my view point, I believe that some at UO are dishing out harsher punishments for smaller infractions.  And whether or not these people are 'popular' or Regulars makes a big difference to what the punishment is.

 

I strongly believe a BoE will even out some of these bumps and create a nicer more tolerant UO as opposed to the do-it-100%-right-in-my-opinion-or-get-banned-unless-you're-my-friend attitude, which I personally believe some people have on the server at this time which is a reaction to the 'lower level of play' on the server.  A BoE hopefully will remove this justification of 'lower play level = ban' from the server and these people can be a littler more tolerant to genuine mistakes on the server.

Edited by zenjamin

Share this post


Link to post

What you fail to realize is that this is a world wide community.  Those wee hours are my and many others primetime.  Why should it be ok for gameplay to diminish during that time frame?  With this barrier of entry it cuts a clear definition on what  your expected to know and how to act while on the server.

 

If Chief says it crap when he gets on I believe him over you any and every time.

You believe him over someone actually playing? The bias seems legit. Why should it be okay? Because us as regulars have allowed 'night time' to be accepted as herp derp hours, and no one has made a huge effort to deter from that particular mindset.

Share this post


Link to post

You believe him over someone actually playing? The bias seems legit. Why should it be okay? Because us as regulars have allowed 'night time' to be accepted as herp derp hours, and no one has made a huge effort to deter from that particular mindset.

 

Yes I do.  Its not hard to tell the state of the server by just listening to what people are talking about, the way they are communicating, how they are calling out contacts, etc.  Chief's been around to know this.

 

To answer your earlier question, do I play Tac Tues.  No I don't, I am busy running a company at the time when Tac Tues is on.  I have contractual obligations to meet, deadlines that require results, payrolls to be met so families can put food on their tables.  These are things that may seem foreign to some of our younger crowds.  So after a 12 hour work day  is it hard to ask, that when i get on the server that their be a level of minimum expectations? 

 

Right now there is no bar set, no minimum expectations.  Right now any bar would do and I think this will set that bar. If at a latter point we want to move that bar a notch up or down we can. 

 

That is why I have voted Yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Well here's my take on the overall herp derp issue.  This last Tactical TuesdayI don't know if any of you guys were with me in what I believe was an AAV7, but a bunch of people were screwing around on the 343 radios making fun of the "interrogative" term and it was disrupting our squad leader's comms.  I simply yelled at them very seriously that the next person to fuck around on the 343 would get banned and I meant it (I was watching on TS3 waiting for someone to keep doing it).  After I did that a couple of other players chimed in supporting me.    After that we had no further major herp derp issues.     All regulars need to step up and police not only other players but also other regulars (including myself if I'm acting stupid although lately I've been working hard at trying to be more professional and not drinking so much while I'm playing).   There's a time sometimes for a little fun and joking, but most of the time it's about having your game face on and doing what you need to do to keep you and your unit alive (as well as role playing to try and create a sense of immersion). 

For that reason, I think more regulars on the server definitely helps and we need to work together to just police the herp-derp and keep things tactical.  Those who like to fool around will eventually leave (as many have).   Those that stay tend to stick around and learn.   So lets stay focused and positive and work to fix these issues in a productive manner.  
 
I will take the first step and say that I apologize to Krouse for my combative and accusatory stance early on in this thread.   I see the purpose of this change, but I just think it could be better explained as far as who will be in charge of developing the SOP's and where those will be posted so that we're on the same page of music instead of every GM making up their separate and contradictory SOP's.    So if this doesn't pass Krouse....do it again and don't be afraid to ask people from the Bat Cave including myself for feedback and I'll try to be constructive as ultimately I think we all want the same thing which is a higher caliber of gameplay and less herp-derp.  

 

 

Also I should add that if UOTC needs extra cadre for basic familiarization courses, lets work on getting more regulars to sign up for that.  I know I can do it at least once a week.  Anyone else willing to step up?  Heck even some non-regulars with long experience could fulfill that role easily.   So perhaps someone on the UOTC side of things can maybe recruit people to help out if they feel that they may be overwhelmed with famil course requests.

Also regarding the lack of more "Tactical Days"   We should perhaps have a "Tactical Saturday" or "Sunday" for those who work all week (or are in school).   

.  

Edited by miles teg

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...