Jump to content

Milsims drama


RedWardancer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I only play two games online, SB and Arma 3.  Been on Arma for little over a year now.  Joined and left four different groups due to drama that I think should not be in gaming.  Typical stuff I encounter:

 

1, Founding members had a fallout.  When the person who designed everything bounced, the others "stole" everything he did.

2, The members wanted to be creative, but the man in charge wasn't having it so they split.  Half made their own crappy group, the others just stopped playing all together.

3, The group(s) are either way to relaxed and immature, or play as if they really are in the military ("yes Sir, no Sir, etc).  

 

There's other stuff that goes on (DO NOT get me started on the racism) that just ruins the fun most of the time.  Wondering why so much nonsense has to be in gaming or maybe it's an Arma thing?  It's a bit of a rant, but life's too short for this mess, particularly in gaming.

 

Has anyone else gone through this?  I recall Apocalypse mentioning how milsims are a headache, are we just unlucky or is this the norm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not sure how much of that is "milsim" specific, or tribalims as a part of human nature, and/or something to encounter in online gaming in general.

Psychologists speak of the "purity spiral" as the underlying mechanism of radicalization, which might also apply to the (way less destructive and in no other way comparable) tendency of some to overdo it with role-playing soldier.

 

And whenever people are involved, you get "people problems", particularly if you never meet them in person. Trash talk is one thing if you're sitting together in front of a split screen, or maybe in a cozy gym hall for a LAN party. It can develop a different dynamic if you never see each other's faces and rely on text messages and online chat.

 

If anything, my impression is that you can avoid this only with some moderation involved where you intervene lightly, but at a low threshold, to establish a group culture early on.

 

Uglier parts of human nature as a manifestation of a general "us vs them" attitude are part of the general "people problem" spectrum.

Online gamers don't exactly have a stellar reputation in their communications discipline. Whether that's misogyny, racism, [insert other identitarian topics per your preference here], ... - seems all a manifestation of tribalism and the desire to one-up each other in group chats because some people want to belong more than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Lived through the same thing in Eve-Online from 2003-2009. Most intense gaming experience I ever experienced. It was a real 'it was the best of times and it was the worst of times' situation playing Eve 🙂 No racism, but the all the bad apples in the general population put me off playing games online ever since. It's a shame because online gaming with like-minded friends can be very fun. The problem, as Snake says, is that there is a lack of accountability in online games which just triggers the worst in a lot of people.

Edited by Count Sessine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens quite a lot. People get into the rol to much and forget it´s just a game, and/or sim. It´s more then fine if you want to train or make it more realistic, but don´t forget most of us are here for the fun and to meet, or make new friends etc. Not everybody knows what wheel barrel you just saw in between a bush relates to which tank type!  I have been eliminated by the OPFOR many times due to following order´s, sent to a hazardous paths, or any other order that got me into a bad situation.  I just take it as a man and move forward to the next meeting/game with a smile.  Never took it personal until others did. Out of 70 games I played in SB/MP I had 6 blue on blue. To later find out that "other" more vets made similar mistakes but no fuss was made, which led me to quit MP gaming, at least for some time.

 

Now when I play any MP (PvP) game I usually do it lonewolf with no mic on.

 

As any CMD should know, "son leave you´re ego in the bathroom". Which doesn't always apply.

 

Red

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly I think this is pretty much the norm nowadays.

 

Way back when I used to play Microsoft's "Combat Flight Simulator".  It was not a very realistic game, ESPECIALLY in multiplayer, but I found a squad that tried to make it more realistic and joined them.  They didn't stick to one side or anything, they'd sort of mix it up and try out different roles, bombers, fighters, Allied, Axis, etc.  The founding member hadn't been heard from in a year when I joined, stayed missing for another year or two, came back, and a huge argument broke out.  In his absence other guys had decided to declare him to be "MIA" instead of the leader and kept things going and kept organizing events.  That fight led to about 3/4 of the membership leaving (myself included) to reform a new squad, in another game, under a new but similar name.

 

That other game was IL-2 Sturmovik, at that point in time exclusively a Germany vs. Russia simulator.  I was already playing it, and already in a squad on the German side, and we were involved in one of the online campaigns people used to put together.  I encouraged the CFS guys to simply join up with that squad, or to form one I could transfer to so we could play together.  The CFS1 guys thought the German aircraft were "too hard to fly" and formed up a squad playing on the Russian side.  I used to "switch hats" so to speak and alternate between the two sides.  That lasted for a few weeks and I got booted out of the German one for a "conflict of interest".

 

I played with my old crew for a while, got tired of flying Russian planes constantly, left, joined another squad on the German side.  They took things to the absolute extreme.  Wanted us to use authentic phrases and code-words when using Teamspeak, spent so much time organizing and planning that they couldn't fight due to fear of becoming disorganized, etc.  My actual performance in online matches had to be better than 80% of their entire team, but after missing a few of their "training" events, words were exchanged, and I left.  I basically got dressed down for spending too much time being good at the game and not enough time saluting people over the internet.

The crew I had played with before was still there and asked me to come back with them, which I did, they started switching sides, lots of great fun was had.  I think the CFS1 multiplayer shut down about that time and the members that had still stayed over there started showing up still using their old name, recognized us, started tons of drama, etc etc etc and I got so tired of it I pretty much quit all multiplayer.

Edited by Maj.Hans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The whole point of the pursuit of immersion is to make you forget that.

But forgetting that in regards to human interaction...makes things go south in a gaming community.

 

Playing a tank game (IMHO) is about having the fun side of tanking...without the sh++ty side (TD+maintenance, S1-issues, bad wether  etc etc etc...) 😉

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sure. Everybody who ever had to work with tanks know how much effort you need to put into just keeping them running; IOW, the immersion threshold is much higher. And yes, I agree that "too much immersion" is bad for communicating in a way that entices others to play more with you.

 

The point is, we have two conflicting goals. Better immersion mobilizes more players - and that could then result in frustration about immersed players' behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the drama is not about Immersion to be honest, it´s about not doing right what you are expected to do by others in that game session.  No room for mistakes with added win win attitude no matter what.  But then those same one´s who get on you´re case are the one´s who, "do as I say but not as I do" which really makes things worst as a community guide line.

 

I understand that in a RL situation there are lives dependent, but this is not the case in a game/sim. You don´t have total peripheral awareness of your senses to begin with.  While playing Raise of Flight, I once told a guy to hang a dripping can of oil in front of a fan if he wanted more Immersion!

 

I think it´s more to do with ego and rol playing, and it´s something that has been killing the MP community for many years. You now have hackers (win win) in MP, along with those who just want to make you´re game session miserable (team kill, Insults etc.).

 

It´s sad but then again only "we" can change this gaming culture habit by standing out and/or reporting abuse, mal practice etc. If we want Immersion, it´s are duty to make MP gaming healthy, which starts with respect and fair play IMHO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I get it with the immersion.  The thing is some groups take it way too far.  I once got chewed out and yelled at for saying "Bandits!  Ten Level!" instead of "Blue Leader from Blue Two, bandits, 10 O'Clock, Co-Altitude, Over." or something like that in teamspeak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have no idea how the situation could be improved from the game design perspective (but I'm willing to listen to suggestions). Communications in multiplayer session is (and should be, IMO) completely under the responsibility of the gaming community.

 

It is of course thinkable to set up some anonymized questionnaire for each user after a session to ask him to rate the communications quality of his team mates, so each player receives feedback how others see him. But of course that could also be abused by trolls, or be used by players attempting to dominate their group as an instrument of control - like Facebook pressure ("Why haven't you liked my picture? Not that it matters to me - but all others did!"). And once that you ask for multiple dimensions - like "clarity of communication", "friendliness", "leading by example" - and you have 20+ players in a game, the question is whether people actually care to fill it out honestly, whether they actually remember accurately who said what to whom when, ... so I'm skeptical that this would be the solution. And even if your reputation goes down in an online community you still have people who don't care, or who become extra hostile because someone dared to put a dent into their ego or create dissonance with their self-image. Not everybody reacts equally well to honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t think it´s a game design Issue. Even more, devs come up with anti-cheat apps and while they do stop alot of hackers, there´s still some who find a way to wall-hack or what ever tactic to ruin fair play.

 

The defunct Seawolves org (community) had a pretty good structure to deal with these issues because it was based on a military doctrine. Any one joining would start as Ensign and move up the rank chain as requirements were meet no matter how good you were with the sim (division) you were joning.  Any one In the lobby would salute (<S>) when a higher rank entered the lobby, no one Interrupted a higher rank and permission was asked to speak, just as you would with a military protocol. The Seawolves even had there own advocacy department in case things got out of hand.  Everyone was very respectful with each other (circa 1,500 members in 2000), and although some issues always arise between us humans, things were pretty much under control. We didn´t always play co-op. Almost all sessions in 688i H/K were done PVP and no one ever made a fuss! One can get very angry while a pinging torp closes in on him knowing that it´s coming from a human player, but that only showed that he/she was better then you on sonar and TMA. We took things very well.

 

Here´s a recent vid I was gonna post in the FPS section here, and guess what...

 

Drama shows it´s ugly head 😁

 

 

Red

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Any one In the lobby would salute (<S>) when a higher rank entered the lobby, no one Interrupted a higher rank and permission was asked to speak, just as you would with a military protocol.

And this type of caricature/travesty of military protocol, is a reason when I (an many ex-/active- soldiers I know) would never join such an "outfit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It´s not like you were going to get court-martialed if you didn´t salute, it was more like a way of saying hi and/or acknowledging that someone entered the room.  Alot better then getting biched at by someone who had a bad day, had a hangover, or though you were in his unit under his command.

 

FWIW, The Seawolves.org was founded by ex and active military personnel, and alot of the members were ex, or active in there respective armies as myself.  Not everybody has the same mindset...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Red2112 said:

It´s not like you were going to get court-martialed if you didn´t salute, it was more like a way of saying hi and/or acknowledging that someone entered the room

This was how World War Two online was whenever a member of the High Command logged in. Certainly not mandatory.

 

 

Moreso-

What is the right balance  of immersion? And how is it applied in a way that is ATTRACTIVE and inclusive rather than toxic and exclusive?

Edited by Apocalypse 31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...