Post by DamienVC on Apr 23, 2018 23:17:00 GMT
The following two pictures represent where I think the game is at this point.
These pictures represent themes that are far too common in the community that exists today.
Imbalance
We see it more often recently than we have in the past.
In the old version of Army Force Online, "imbalance" referred to the solidarity of an established clan dominating all challengers that came to a room. It referred to the strength of a team coming together to foster the creation of new teams to challenge them, and for a while we had several active teams vying for the recognition of being the most powerful clan in AFO.
These days, "imbalance" is the kind that you see in these pictures. Several prominent or high level players occupy one side while newer or lower level players occupy the other side. These players are not in an established or public clan, and they are not encouraging any form of competition to rise up and meet their level of play; the only perceivable motivation for this choice is personal satisfaction. Although in both pictures there is an opportunity for a high level player to even cosmetically even the teams out, it is unlikely for them to do so. Players such as ANTONIO ALVES would often choose not to join until there is evidence to show that the lower level team was overpowering the high level team, and players such as Max-G-Spark have a tendency to remain out of games unless there is a potential for them to play a long-range passive role that does not require much effort to secure a win.
I expect there to be some disagreement with this assessment, and claims that players only make the decisions they do for "fun".
Regardless of the motivation, however the player-manufactured difficulty is a conscious choice made by the individual. It forces the new, low level player to rise up above conditions where winning requires them to defeat both experience and weapon availability.
Misconduct
The actions and choices of active high level players determine what is considered acceptable for newer players.
When new players see high level players abusing glitches and hacking programs, the first reaction is not always to report the behavior to the administration. More often, we see players asking how glitches are done and if a player can provide them with programs to help them achieve better in-game results. It is usually the choice of the individual high level player to perpetuate and spread this knowledge, which later becomes the choice of the next player to decide whether or not they want to pass it on to the next person.
There is validity to this observation as we have seen it in the rise of bomb-oriented gameplay. For the time that I had a desire to chase the top of the rankings, I had done so with a heavy emphasis on becoming a player that can hit long-range headshots at a consistently high rate. For a period of time, gun play, especially defensive gun play that utilized terrain as an anti-bomb measure became a popular tactic. When the influx of hackers and wall glitch abusers was at an all-time high, gun tactics became ineffective. High level players who had access to RPGs and grenade launchers started developing ways to effectively stay tied with or winning against cheaters. When new players who were tired of being beaten by cheaters saw this, they ended up adopting the strategy as the new meta.
Similarly, we can expect the same in terms of how people approach things not necessarily related to the game.
Verbal abuse such as the kind displayed by high level players such as ilyrian is common in today's game, especially in the form of accusation. Whether in English or in other languages, the most common abuse is the implantation of the idea that someone is a cheater without substantial evidence; most times, these accusations go without any report being made to us and is used as long-term psychological warfare on an individual player to reduce willing support for them and isolate them, or to have other players ostracize them in the short-term and force them to essentially be chased out of the room for fear of being banned via group complaint.
On a side note, we do not ban players on the basis of several people complaining about a person. That person still has to have legitimately done something wrong.
On the topic of banning, however, the insistence of high level players that they have done no wrong, and the resulting return of their accounts leads players to believe that they can simply manhandle the administration into giving their accounts back. Our moderation team at this point has seen everything from hundreds of accounts being made to circumvent bans to players openly accusing us of abusing power or having no evidence of a player engaging in a bannable activity. Much of this originated from reports made to this forum, and the resulting defenses made by the high level players being reported.
Conclusion
If you were looking for a tl;dr version of this, you should navigate away from this thread knowing that there is a problem, and that if you are a high level player, you should recognize that you have more influence in the game than you think. You have a unique opportunity to be an example for players, and ultimately keep the game alive.
But that decision is completely up to you. And if things continue to go this way, the less than 50 active players on the game will soon dwindle into nothing, and the game and all its records will be shut down as it would no longer be of any financial benefit to the developer.
These pictures represent themes that are far too common in the community that exists today.
Imbalance
We see it more often recently than we have in the past.
In the old version of Army Force Online, "imbalance" referred to the solidarity of an established clan dominating all challengers that came to a room. It referred to the strength of a team coming together to foster the creation of new teams to challenge them, and for a while we had several active teams vying for the recognition of being the most powerful clan in AFO.
These days, "imbalance" is the kind that you see in these pictures. Several prominent or high level players occupy one side while newer or lower level players occupy the other side. These players are not in an established or public clan, and they are not encouraging any form of competition to rise up and meet their level of play; the only perceivable motivation for this choice is personal satisfaction. Although in both pictures there is an opportunity for a high level player to even cosmetically even the teams out, it is unlikely for them to do so. Players such as ANTONIO ALVES would often choose not to join until there is evidence to show that the lower level team was overpowering the high level team, and players such as Max-G-Spark have a tendency to remain out of games unless there is a potential for them to play a long-range passive role that does not require much effort to secure a win.
I expect there to be some disagreement with this assessment, and claims that players only make the decisions they do for "fun".
Regardless of the motivation, however the player-manufactured difficulty is a conscious choice made by the individual. It forces the new, low level player to rise up above conditions where winning requires them to defeat both experience and weapon availability.
Misconduct
The actions and choices of active high level players determine what is considered acceptable for newer players.
When new players see high level players abusing glitches and hacking programs, the first reaction is not always to report the behavior to the administration. More often, we see players asking how glitches are done and if a player can provide them with programs to help them achieve better in-game results. It is usually the choice of the individual high level player to perpetuate and spread this knowledge, which later becomes the choice of the next player to decide whether or not they want to pass it on to the next person.
There is validity to this observation as we have seen it in the rise of bomb-oriented gameplay. For the time that I had a desire to chase the top of the rankings, I had done so with a heavy emphasis on becoming a player that can hit long-range headshots at a consistently high rate. For a period of time, gun play, especially defensive gun play that utilized terrain as an anti-bomb measure became a popular tactic. When the influx of hackers and wall glitch abusers was at an all-time high, gun tactics became ineffective. High level players who had access to RPGs and grenade launchers started developing ways to effectively stay tied with or winning against cheaters. When new players who were tired of being beaten by cheaters saw this, they ended up adopting the strategy as the new meta.
Similarly, we can expect the same in terms of how people approach things not necessarily related to the game.
Verbal abuse such as the kind displayed by high level players such as ilyrian is common in today's game, especially in the form of accusation. Whether in English or in other languages, the most common abuse is the implantation of the idea that someone is a cheater without substantial evidence; most times, these accusations go without any report being made to us and is used as long-term psychological warfare on an individual player to reduce willing support for them and isolate them, or to have other players ostracize them in the short-term and force them to essentially be chased out of the room for fear of being banned via group complaint.
On a side note, we do not ban players on the basis of several people complaining about a person. That person still has to have legitimately done something wrong.
On the topic of banning, however, the insistence of high level players that they have done no wrong, and the resulting return of their accounts leads players to believe that they can simply manhandle the administration into giving their accounts back. Our moderation team at this point has seen everything from hundreds of accounts being made to circumvent bans to players openly accusing us of abusing power or having no evidence of a player engaging in a bannable activity. Much of this originated from reports made to this forum, and the resulting defenses made by the high level players being reported.
Conclusion
If you were looking for a tl;dr version of this, you should navigate away from this thread knowing that there is a problem, and that if you are a high level player, you should recognize that you have more influence in the game than you think. You have a unique opportunity to be an example for players, and ultimately keep the game alive.
But that decision is completely up to you. And if things continue to go this way, the less than 50 active players on the game will soon dwindle into nothing, and the game and all its records will be shut down as it would no longer be of any financial benefit to the developer.