Spawn Campers: And You're to Blame

[Light_Flight 269]

8 hours ago, OXidE said:

 

... Alternatively, there is something satisfying in working together to bait and lure spawn campers down to spawn level and taking them out. 

 

Whenever I can I alert the team to the presence of spawn campers. Henceforth, I'll add to the warning: "Dive dive. Climb back later".

By the way, in using chat to offer advice, it's worth remembering that most players do not have English as first language, so it's important to keep the message simple. Though those of us without a Cyrillic keyboard are bound to miss many!

[IdiotInA 1,139]

8 hours ago, RyotNZ said:

 

This would likely play into the camper's hands more than anything. Here's why...

 

 

Far as Im concerned. If a player is flying over the spawn and only engaging enemies that are trying to target him... he isnt camping.
Those that target everything that is unable to effectively dive away from him... are camping.
Thats why I personally feel most complaints about camping arent really valid. Theres a big difference between maintaining altitude advantage at the opposing team's spawn... and pouncing on anything that cant get away. 
True campers will chase down slower aircraft that are clearly diving away simply because its an easy kill. When using fighters such as a 109 its pretty easy to catch most attackers and bombers when you already have a huge energy advantage.
Having different spawn areas would help in this situation as you would be able to spawn in 6km from the camper... instead of 2km.
If could even be automatic. The game simply spawns you at a spawn point furthest from any enemy aircraft. 

Im not sure what the size of the spawn area is presently. It doesnt seem to be much more than 5km wide. Judging by the distances between team mates spawning in at start of match.
Doubling that width would help if the game helped by spawning you at furthest distance from camper.
He would then be 5km at closest. Giving any spawning player a good chance to dive away.
Sticking spawn points way off to the sides of the map would be problematic as it makes side climbing so much easier. Basically halving the time it would take to get to 6000m and be close to the action. And bombers with good climb could reach 10,000m with ease... no body wants that.

Presently the five seconds of invincibility does nothing  for those attempting to dive away from an aggressive spawn camper. 
The question is... Why do aggressive spawn campers camp?
And the answer is.... no matter what such campers say.... To reap easy kills.
Making it noticeably more difficult to engage a freshly spawned target without loosing altitude and position is the best way to solve it IMO. 

I really dislike any idea of making AAA even more deadly as I already find airfield AAA a pain in the butt.
A lot of Arcade maps have the airfield so close to legitimate ground targets I often find myself being sniped by AAA whilst flying at 500m and 4km from enemy airfield... so annoying.
For me any suggestion to help with spawn camping 'such as even deadlier AAA' is a no go because it has a drastic effect on players that are not camping.
Which is also why I would not advocate for huge distances between spawn points. Just more that we presently have.

Edited April 7, 2020 by IdiotInA

[DerLachendeMann 506]

It's a strategy among others, in my opinion generally not the best one.

 

Though it really depends what somebody wants to achieve, win the game or get KDR up, for me the main objective is usually to win. Most maps are ground attack, some domination and a couple of air dom sprinkled in.

 

On game start I'll check the teams, warn my team if the opponent has eRekt or some such with them, though I don't usually care much about spawn campers.

 

On a ground attack map I'll generally use fighter bombers, spawn in with bombs, dive down steep (that's the part where good spawn campers usually won't follow) and do my magic on ground targets, until the spawncamper got his 30+ air kills but we got the win.

 

Domination is pretty much the same, can't win through capping if you hang out in opponent(s spawn.

 

Now in air dom it's a different story, climb high, I rather often end up in opponent's spawn myself, though air dom is the only mode where I find spawncamping a viable strategy.

 

[Lexing_ 241]

8 hours ago, IdiotInA said:

Far as Im concerned. If a player is flying over the spawn and only engaging enemies that are trying to target him... he isnt camping.
Those that target everything that is unable to effectively dive away from him... are camping.
Thats why I personally feel most complaints about camping arent really valid. Theres a big difference between maintaining altitude advantage at the opposing team's spawn... and pouncing on anything that cant get away. 
True campers will chase down slower aircraft that are clearly diving away simply because its an easy kill. When using fighters such as a 109 its pretty easy to catch most attackers and bombers when you already have a huge energy advantage.
Having different spawn areas would help in this situation as you would be able to spawn in 6km from the camper... instead of 2km.
If could even be automatic. The game simply spawns you at a spawn point furthest from any enemy aircraft. 

Im not sure what the size of the spawn area is presently. It doesnt seem to be much more than 5km wide. Judging by the distances between team mates spawning in at start of match.
Doubling that width would help if the game helped by spawning you at furthest distance from camper.
He would then be 5km at closest. Giving any spawning player a good chance to dive away.
Sticking spawn points way off to the sides of the map would be problematic as it makes side climbing so much easier. Basically halving the time it would take to get to 6000m and be close to the action. And bombers with good climb could reach 10,000m with ease... no body wants that.

Presently the five seconds of invincibility does nothing  for those attempting to dive away from an aggressive spawn camper. 
The question is... Why do aggressive spawn campers camp?
And the answer is.... no matter what such campers say.... To reap easy kills.
Making it noticeably more difficult to engage a freshly spawned target without loosing altitude and position is the best way to solve it IMO. 

I really dislike any idea of making AAA even more deadly as I already find airfield AAA a pain in the butt.
A lot of Arcade maps have the airfield so close to legitimate ground targets I often find myself being sniped by AAA whilst flying at 500m and 4km from enemy airfield... so annoying.
For me any suggestion to help with spawn camping 'such as even deadlier AAA' is a no go because it has a drastic effect on players that are not camping.
Which is also why I would not advocate for huge distances between spawn points. Just more that we presently have.

Here's to a common misconception; spawn camping is for easy kills. It's really not easy to rack up more than 10 kills a game, and anyone who can consistently do that would be considered a top tier pilot. This is further compounded by the storm of enemies, even bombers trying to gunship you, attempting to gun you down when you are close to the spawn. If the spawn area is made bigger, I see no reason to simply have two separate spawn points determined either by RNG or by the player. 

 

Also being aggressive over the spawn is a very dangerous thing, you got the whole team chasing you like puppies. 

[IdiotInA 1,139]

1 hour ago, ____Lexing____ said:

Here's to a common misconception; spawn camping is for easy kills. It's really not easy to rack up more than 10 kills a game, and anyone who can consistently do that would be considered a top tier pilot. This is further compounded by the storm of enemies, even bombers trying to gunship you, attempting to gun you down when you are close to the spawn. If the spawn area is made bigger, I see no reason to simply have two separate spawn points determined either by RNG or by the player. 

 

Also being aggressive over the spawn is a very dangerous thing, you got the whole team chasing you like puppies. 

Spawn camping happens at around 5000m+ where the camper can dive on both bombers and fighters,
If your in enemy spawn at an equal level to fighters or at an altitude where they can effectively chase you... you're not camping... you're a sitting duck.
Seems we are speaking about different things here. Im talking about purposeful aggressive spawn camping.
You seem to be talking about flying around the enemy spawn with no concept of altitude or energy. 
Two very different things.
 

[cashmeowsidehbd 1,269]

weeemp. waaamp.

[Lexing_ 241]

3 hours ago, IdiotInA said:

Spawn camping happens at around 5000m+ where the camper can dive on both bombers and fighters,
If your in enemy spawn at an equal level to fighters or at an altitude where they can effectively chase you... you're not camping... you're a sitting duck.
Seems we are speaking about different things here. Im talking about purposeful aggressive spawn camping.
You seem to be talking about flying around the enemy spawn with no concept of altitude or energy. 
Two very different things.
 

First of all, a spawn camper around 5000m is not a threat at all, as every freshly spawned plane can easily dive away from him. A dangerous spawn camper will usually position himself around 3000-3500 meters, so he can deny bombers from diving away and also maintain a sizable energy advantage over hostile fighters. What you call "purposeful aggressive spawn camping" does not in fact exist in a practical form, as it poses little threat to the opposing team to the point where you'll be ignored for doing it.

[clar1ty 77]

Glad to see the variety of topics on the Air Arcade forum is as varied as ever.

[IdiotInA 1,139]

6 hours ago, ____Lexing____ said:

First of all, a spawn camper around 5000m is not a threat at all, as every freshly spawned plane can easily dive away from him. A dangerous spawn camper will usually position himself around 3000-3500 meters, so he can deny bombers from diving away and also maintain a sizable energy advantage over hostile fighters. What you call "purposeful aggressive spawn camping" does not in fact exist in a practical form, as it poses little threat to the opposing team to the point where you'll be ignored for doing it.

Not true.
Camping at around 5000m gives you best opportunity to engage a freshly spawned bomber at speed. By the time he has looked around you are already diving towards him at high speed.
The energy can then be used to engage another freshly spawned plane before climbing back up to high altitude. At this point there will often be another plane trying to climb towards you... so another easy target.
Then rinse and repeat.
At 3000-3500m you simply dont have the energy advantage to stay safe. With fighters spawning in 1000m below you.... attackers and bomber near or at same altitude.
Plus someone on the opposing team can easily climb above you whilst your engaging spawners and get the drop on you.
'Aggressive'  does not mean 'careless'. 
Your description of what a camper is doesn't even bother me. Because playing like that doesn't really give the camper an unfair advantage. 
Yes... keeping a safe alt of 4500-5000m does mean that any fighter or attacker that goes into an instant dive is not going to be a viable target.... if at that point they spawn you are at that altitude.
But thats not how proper camping works. Its all about BnZ and taking out at many freshly spawned targets in the boom before regaining altitude in the Zoom.
As for the 'threat' level such a player is?
Well that would very much depend on what you fly. Sure if you play mostly fighters then sure... not so much of a threat unless you are unlucky and spawn in in his dive path.
For a bomber player he will be an absolute nightmare to deal with.
As for simply diving away in a fighter... try driving away from a spawn speed of 250mph from a fighter 1.5km away from you travelling at 550mph... good luck with that.

As I myself have used this tactic 'mostly in a P47.. and could regularly pick up 9-12 easy kills whilst playing conservatively. And Im not even any good. I think its pretty effective. 
.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by IdiotInA

[IdiotInA 1,139]

4 hours ago, clar1ty said:

Glad to see the variety of topics on the Air Arcade forum is as varied as ever.

Yes theres also a couple of topics about escorting bombers and stealing kills lol

[Light_Flight 269]

I think the reason why the issue should be raised, probably quite often, is that beginners need to be warned about it. Dedicated spawn camping is akin to seal clubbing so the seals need educating.

 

I believe many newbies become frustrated with the game and prefer to find another, rather than just to fall prey in seconds to the campers' rather strange needs.

 

My position is not to try to ban dedicated campers, but to advise others on how to avoid them. 

[Lexing_ 241]

12 hours ago, IdiotInA said:

Not true.
Camping at around 5000m gives you best opportunity to engage a freshly spawned bomber at speed. By the time he has looked around you are already diving towards him at high speed.
The energy can then be used to engage another freshly spawned plane before climbing back up to high altitude. At this point there will often be another plane trying to climb towards you... so another easy target.
Then rinse and repeat.
At 3000-3500m you simply dont have the energy advantage to stay safe. With fighters spawning in 1000m below you.... attackers and bomber near or at same altitude.
Plus someone on the opposing team can easily climb above you whilst your engaging spawners and get the drop on you.
'Aggressive'  does not mean 'careless'. 
Your description of what a camper is doesn't even bother me. Because playing like that doesn't really give the camper an unfair advantage. 
Yes... keeping a safe alt of 4500-5000m does mean that any fighter or attacker that goes into an instant dive is not going to be a viable target.... if at that point they spawn you are at that altitude.
But thats not how proper camping works. Its all about BnZ and taking out at many freshly spawned targets in the boom before regaining altitude in the Zoom.
As for the 'threat' level such a player is?
Well that would very much depend on what you fly. Sure if you play mostly fighters then sure... not so much of a threat unless you are unlucky and spawn in in his dive path.
For a bomber player he will be an absolute nightmare to deal with.
As for simply diving away in a fighter... try driving away from a spawn speed of 250mph from a fighter 1.5km away from you travelling at 550mph... good luck with that.

As I myself have used this tactic 'mostly in a P47.. and could regularly pick up 9-12 easy kills whilst playing conservatively. And Im not even any good. I think its pretty effective. 
.

 

Proper camping is solo carrying the entire team by killing the entire enemy team by yourself, because otherwise you dont get salt 

[xxKUNG_FUxx 121]

On 07/04/2020 at 03:03, RyotNZ said:

 

This would likely play into the camper's hands more than anything. Here's why...

 

Excluding cases where there are multiple campers working together, in most matches, the majority of a solo campers kills come from picking off fighters and attackers that are nosing up at... let's be kind and say "ambitious angles". A solo camper generally won't take the risk of diving directly into fighter spawn, as it is way too easy to get jumped by either multiple spawning fighters, or an attacker spawning above you. It's often a much safer approach to get the buffet carousel rolling, as I put it, where you pick off a bomber or a slow attacker, and then wait for them to respawn in a fighter and climb for you. Then, like lemmings, their team mates will often join in one by one, and before you know it, you have a steady diet of stalled planes that are trying to exact frothing revenge on you from a very disadvantageous position, and you can just pick them off at will, snacking on the occasional bombers that spawn while you wait for the smouldering wreckages of fighters to respawn.

 

In very rare cases, the carousel just won't get started, and no matter how much pretty pink smoke I run, very few players are interested in climbing for me, or they return to the hangar after one death. These are not fun matches to camp, as it generally forces me to take more risks, such as diving on spawn or leaving spawn altogether to focus on other targets, just in the hope of getting a reasonable kill tally by the end of the match.

 

So in short, the primary determining factor in how many kills a camper gets per match is the general behavior of the enemy team - whether they take the bait, or whether they don't.

 

Having multiple spawns would embolden the camped team to climb more, not less. And given that spawn points practically couldn't be located very far apart, the only difference I would expect to see as a camper is 2-3 smaller streams of stalled planes pointing up towards me, rather than one large one. This is safer for the camper, as I can just deal with one queue at a time, knowing that I have a bunch of other planes at a non-threatening distance on "stall-waiting", as I call it, trying to climb in low energy states, just waiting to be picked off.

 

Changing the in-game mechanics wouldn't fix this flaw in player behavior. Even with one spawn, players can avoid the spawn camper and side-climb to altitude to challenge them if they wish, but very few do. So why would this change with 3 spawns? It simply wouldn't - it would just cause even more players to climb, in the illusory belief that they have a better chance of catching the camper off-guard, which due to the energy state and the general situational awareness of most campers, is very unlikely.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. They explain the thinking as is, with one spawn.

 

I also agree with your conclusion, just not how you reach that conclusion. Given the various factors also, this line, "And given that spawn points practically couldn't be located very far apart".

 

Faster planes means getting to a place faster. Let's stipulate the obvious. Bigger maps allow for more distance between points - we can stipulate this also. Lower tiers are slower, but with smaller maps. Grant all this, doesn't matter.

 

Everyone can also all agree no player can be in two places at once. It can further be accepted than when a fighter is shooting at one opponent he/she cannot shooting at two or more (unless those opponents are located in the same location, in which case they'd ram one another, or from the vantage point of the shooter one opponent is located nearly directly in front or behind the other).

 

The idea of multiple spawn points is not something that's been used so we can assume there is speculation involved in hypothesizing the outcome however. This is not to say such pondering will lead either to a correct answer or a wrong answer. I would claim when we discuss this hypothetical some of what we discuss will be correct and some will be incorrect. Add in that each match is different as are the maps and the players and their actions in them. As you mention and elude to with, "the primary determining factor in how many kills a camper gets per match is the general behavior of the enemy team - whether they take the bait, or whether they don't."

 

So theoretically speaking, if three opponents spawn at precisely the same moment all exhibiting the same behavior of, say, gaining altitude but oblivious to the attacker, let's play it out....

 

SPAWN POINTS

 

(A).......................................(B)....................................... (C)

 

One is shot out of the sky at (B) as attacker pounces. Now with greater speed the attacker flies toward the other spawn (A), kills him (who has slowed of course, due to physics). So far so good for the camping.

But the attacker now has to travel not only twice as far but must turn around, slowing down in the process, and meet an opponent at (C) who is likely at comparable altitude (maybe higher idk).

 

Here's the thing tho.... the attacker isn't "spawn camping" out of the blue. He/she is at that location because they "won that potentiality", either through defeating other opponents at that altitude or perhaps the entire opposing team simply did not gain altitude.

 

I suppose some matches would indeed play out as posited. The greater concern however, is that 1 person does not a team, make. It isn't 1 vs 16. How often would we find a squadron of perhaps only 3, all skilled fighter pilots, having worked together to win altitude supremacy, and now each individual camping all 3 spawn points simultaneously - 1 at each.

 

Consider....

 

With 1 spawn point quite often we may see 3 "spawn campers" getting less kills as individuals because there's just not enough food to go around. With 3 spawn points... do we not end up with that many more plates to feed these hungry wolves?

 

I do believe the multiple spawn point idea is interesting and yet would not help or possibly (maybe likely even) make things worse. But let's face it - this video game can be considered a virtual experiment with rats - in which case we are the ones with tails. It would be fascinating, if only for a week, to see what the actual behavior would become in our cage as opposed to our hypotheses [plural].

 

Maybe we're wrong entirely. Maybe we're entirely correct. Probably some mix.

 

Either way I'd suggest to anyone wishing for multiple spawns - be careful what you wish for. Perhaps it's safer the devil you know than the devil you don't.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by xxKUNG_FUxx

[xxKUNG_FUxx 121]

16 hours ago, Light_Flight said:

I think the reason why the issue should be raised, probably quite often, is that beginners need to be warned about it. Dedicated spawn camping is akin to seal clubbing so the seals need educating.

 

I believe many newbies become frustrated with the game and prefer to find another, rather than just to fall prey in seconds to the campers' rather strange needs.

 

My position is not to try to ban dedicated campers, but to advise others on how to avoid them. 

 

 

"campers' rather strange needs."

 

If you were to capture some predators, say a den of lions, from their natural environment then place them inside a cage - one would be hard pressed in using the word 'strange' in describing their behavior.

 

My point being only that when flying bombers inside our virtual 'cage', or map, bombers will do what comes naturally - given the surroundings, the objective, the rewards, the opposition, etc.

 

The same is for people when flying fighters. It's perfectly natural.

 

It's also perfectly natural for people who die 3,4,5 times a match to complain when they don't get the opportunity to dive into a nearby furball but instead head straight toward a red thing above them and get blown to bits, or whatever the case may be.

 

If we look at our maps and vehicles and possibilities as a virtual world, I feel, it helps as we examine player behavior - and how Gaijin's choice to not only design the aircraft and the surroundings and physics - but also all the parameters within the game (rewards, PVE targets, miraculous # of lives, magical in flight reloading, etc). There exists a plethora of behavior type we see from individuals in matches. I would submit all of it is what comes natural to each player and that very likely their behavior has changed (perhaps dramatically) from when they first began playing and as they learned the mechanics, the meta, the vehicles, the physics, etc., and as they adapted and learn from others. I know I have and I'm not alone. We're human, but animal.

 

Like a lot of issues many of us posters in the forums have it feels as if much of the cause (not going to use the word 'blame' here) is a direct result of the design. We can look at the carrots on the end of the stick. We can examine the gates us dogs start from. We can do all of that and more.

 

Gaijin made us this way. I don't know how many days it took Gaijin to create our universe and our virtual selves within it, but in Gaijin we trust.....

 

maybe.

 

Regardless, the behavior is natural, not strange.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

[OXidE 15]

1 hour ago, xxKUNG_FUxx said:

Gaijin made us this way. I don't know how many days it took Gaijin to create our universe and our virtual selves within it, but in Gaijin we trust.....

well said @xxKUNG_FUxx

 

Gaijin created a miraculous world and gave us free will and determination ... 

blame not thy creator for the sins of spawn camping. 

[Light_Flight 269]

It would be interesting to have the view of psychologists. I'm minded of the Milgram experiment, which measured the extent to which people were willing to inflict pain when instructed to do so. Most participants were. However, many of them were highly stressed when, as "teachers", they applied, as ordered, 450 volts to encourage correct responses from recalcitrant "learners". Nonetheless, a significant minority of pain deliverers did not exhibit such stress. Similar experiments were conducted where the participants actually knew what was going on; but they were emotionally drawn into the action and the results were similar.

 

This game does not force players to inflict maximum pain. There are other ways to win it. So it gives to the Milgram experiment a greater role to the free will described above by @OXidE. Players who choose to inflict maximum pain do so freely. To extrapolate from what @xxKUNG_FUxx argues, it is natural in society to find such people. Whether the game actually encourages players who were not originally inclined to behave in that way to do so, I'm not so sure; because again, there are other ways of playing and winning it.

 

Of course there are loads of similar games around in behavioural terms; but has there been any academic research about the interaction between games and players; or about what motivates some people to play them and others not? 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Light_Flight

[_TasteTheRainbow 95]

36 minutes ago, Light_Flight said:

It would be interesting to have the view of psychologists. I'm minded of the Milgram experiment, which measured the extent to which people were willing to inflict pain when instructed to do so. Most participants were. However, many of them were highly stressed when, as "teachers", they applied, as ordered, 450 volts to encourage correct responses from recalcitrant "learners". Nonetheless, a significant minority of pain deliverers did not exhibit such stress. Similar experiments were conducted where the participants actually knew what was going on; but they were emotionally drawn into the action and the results were similar.

 

This game does not force players to inflict maximum pain. There are other ways to win it. So it gives to the Milgram experiment a greater role to the free will described above by @OXidE. Players who choose to inflict maximum pain do so freely. To extrapolate from what @xxKUNG_FUxx argues, it is natural in society to find such people. Whether the game actually encourages players who were not originally inclined to behave in that way to do so, I'm not so sure; because again, there are other ways of playing and winning it.

 

Of course there are loads of similar games around in behavioural terms; but has there been any academic research about the interaction between games and players; or about what motivates some people to play them and others not? 

 

I think this would be a very difficult topic to deconstruct psychologically, as there are just way too many variables and subjective positions. For starters, how would you analogize "inflicting maximum pain" in game? And how would you measure its effect? It's simply not possible to universalize, as there is too much subjectivity involved.

 

For example, there are plenty of people whose maximum pain point is being spawn camped, sure, but there are whole squadrons whose maximum pain point would be taking a loss. For KDR players, it can be losing a single plane. This is just the result of being in a game with a mixture of PvE and PvP - different statistics and outcomes have different degrees of significance to different players. And best of all, there is no objectively correct statistic to chase. Everyone can pursue whatever makes them most happy (or no statistic at all, as the case may be).

 

Now, the definition of inflicting as much pain as possible is an interesting one. I think all players do this to an extent, in their own pursuit of achieving excellence at their chosen niche within the game. Even the career ground pounders and objective players who are bestowed a glowing aura of virtue and honor by the general community are seeking to inflict maximum damage to the enemy team's tickets as possible. It's a MMO combat game - anyone who gets squeamish about upsetting other players by dominating them in a virtual arena is missing a massive component of the game, and will never improve beyond a very beginner level. In the same way as a boxer who is pulling punches because he is worried about hurting his opponent will not have the edge to be competitive.

 

If we are going to dip into the psychological arena though, I think an interesting analysis would be the levels of mental maturity of people who self-categorize by different play styles. As an anecdotal observation, there does seem to be a theme of a total loss of perspective by non-PvP players who are met with PvP play (say, at spawn), who are quite notorious for being viciously hateful towards players who offend their sensibilities, both in game chat and DM's, and yet I have not seen a non-objective-focused player become verbally agitated by players on the enemy team mercilessly pursuing a win in as little time as possible, even when it negatively impacts on their own experience, for example, by shortening the length of the match and thereby reducing kill tallies.

Edited April 9, 2020 by RyotNZ

[Light_Flight 269]

Actually, venom too often has been a feature on all sides of this debate, including denigration of what are termed “objective driven” players. In business, people who are not “objective driven” worry me. But then it is, in my opinion, one of the great aspects of this game that normal rules of behaviour can be broken. I don’t object to that. I am interested however in what motivates people who exclusively adopt a particular behaviour that amounts to seal clubbing and probably puts off many newbies from playing the game further.

 

In theory, it would be relatively simple to design a questionnaire-based analysis looking at various player populations. Complex behavioural analysis is constantly being carried out in business, for example in examining new market potential, or in planning organisational development. An interesting aspect, for instance, would be to look for any correlation between the in-game behaviour of players from societies reputed for their team orientation compared to players from societies considered more individually oriented. The results could be the opposite of what might be expected; maybe members of more “social” societies jump at the opportunity to “break out” and behave as rebels! The problem in conducting such analysis would be practical: to get a large enough sample to be statistically viable. 

 

However, I do accept that my earlier depiction of dedicated spawn campers’ needs as being “strange” isn’t right. There are all sorts of people in all societies and so naturally enough, there are all sorts in the game.

[_TasteTheRainbow 95]

19 minutes ago, Light_Flight said:

Actually, venom too often has been a feature on all sides of this debate, including denigration of what are termed “objective driven” players.

 

It's rare if it does exist, and I have to reject the idea that the level of vitriol is in any way equivalent between groups of play styles. I've played many different ways in the game, from chasing wins, to chasing KDR, mid-map furballing, to camping spawns. I never had a single hateful message from anyone for stomping matches in under 5 minutes with a full 4-man squad, but since switching to a more PvP style, I've had literally hundreds of complaints against me as well as pages and pages of frothing hate, ranging from the usual insults all the way up to wishing death upon me and anyone who looks like me, including from people that I used to play objective with! This is why I think maturity and overall emotional development correlation studies would be the more interesting area for psychological analysis (albeit, logistically impossible), as I am confident in my experience of where the toxicity lies statistically (of course, as a general theme, not saying that there aren't exceptions).

 

55 minutes ago, Light_Flight said:

In business, people who are not “objective driven” worry me. But then it is, in my opinion, one of the great aspects of this game that normal rules of behaviour can be broken. I don’t object to that

 

Yes, in this context, I am using "objective-driven" to refer to the assigned in-game objective, ie. chasing the win. Although everyone in-game is objective driven in the broader sense, even if that objective is just having fun

 

31 minutes ago, Light_Flight said:

I am interested however in what motivates people who exclusively adopt a particular behaviour that amounts to seal clubbing and probably puts off many newbies from playing the game further.

 

Seal clubbing is a very separate topic to spawn camping, at least in my assessment. Seal clubbing is an outlet for people who don't want to challenge themselves any further than their current horizons, and would prefer to remain a big fish in a small pond. It can apply to people who only ever camp newbies, sure, but for the sake of balance, let's not forget about the aforementioned winrate players who pretty much exclusively spam 4-man, 2.0 BR squadrons. I think people should play however they enjoy the most, but I found it pretty monotonous to just keep crushing the same predictable AI targets over and over again at any BR, and it certainly was what inspired me to learn PvP gameplay.

 

50 minutes ago, Light_Flight said:

In theory, it would be relatively simple to design a questionnaire-based analysis looking at various player populations. Complex behavioural analysis is constantly being carried out in business, for example in examining new market potential, or in planning organisational development. An interesting aspect, for instance, would be to look for any correlation between the in-game behaviour of players from societies reputed for their team orientation compared to players from societies considered more individually oriented. The results could be the opposite of what might be expected; maybe members of more “social” societies jump at the opportunity to “break out” and behave as rebels! The problem in conducting such analysis would be practical: to get a large enough sample to be statistically viable. 

 

I think that would be interesting too, and would be much more achievable than assessing subjective pain points.

[xxKUNG_FUxx 121]

5 hours ago, Light_Flight said:

.....

4 hours ago, RyotNZ said:

.....

 

@Light_Flight and @RyotNZ,

 

On the tangent of in game psychology have you ever looked through the book, 'In Pursuit: A Pilot's Guide to Online Air Combat', by chance?

 

I happened on it months back looking for guide on advanced air combat maneuvers & techniques (like Robert Shaw wrote about, or the US Air Force and Navy manuals which are all found online in PDF format - and numerous others).

 

In it the author, Kylander, wrote an interesting section in Chapter 4 of his book where he goes into some analysis of an opponent's psychology in dogfights and air combat in online gaming (I paraphrase a bit).

 

I found it a fun read and you can definitely see some of this behavior in War Thunder.

 

Chapter 4 is called, "You are the enemy". Starts on page 96.

 

Can skim through it here online, or download it free and read offline if you have a PDF reader -

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/lento_ohjeet/inpursuit/inpursuit.pdf

Edited April 9, 2020 by xxKUNG_FUxx

[xxKUNG_FUxx 121]

16 hours ago, OXidE said:

well said @xxKUNG_FUxx

 

Gaijin created a miraculous world and gave us free will and determination ... 

blame not thy creator for the sins of spawn camping. 

Mmmm, maybe contrare'.

 

I actually do point the finger more at Gaijin. And I'm not the only one!

 

Many aren't aware of this but one of the most famous fighter pilots and video gamers of all times lived roughly 500 years ago. Some people think he was just a painter or sculptor but NO - behold the great, Michelangelo! If you've never visited the Sistine Chapel you may have missed it.

 

And he too left us clues about who he pointed the finger of blame at in terms of player behavior also. I don't pretend to speak Italian but a picture speaks a thousand words....

 

 

[Light_Flight 269]

@xxKUNG_FUxx: A fun read indeed. Thanks for that!

 

[Kosher_Locust 120]

Spawn camping is my biggest frustration in the game.  Guys do it (and defend it ad nauseum) as it's a way to score big, and they get addicted to it whether they want to admit it or not--and the times I've confronted them  the rage and immaturity has been unreal.  How dare I say he's not King of the Air.

 

Part of the problem is it's a tactic that goes against the plausible acceptance we have to play the game.  By that I mean we accept some parts of it and work with it.  We see the line up of bombers and fighters, get an idea where we can get into a fight, and also have a general idea how long before other enemy join the fray.  It's not a "Boom and Zoom" fighter as those guys drop down to a low altitude then take off, and usually only get one good chance at taking you down.  It is the guy who flys over at 5500 meters, then parks over spawning players, keeping between 3500 and 5500 as he dives in for easy kills. I'd say 75% of these guys are in BF-109's and one I followed his replays and he quit anytime he was killed to keep his high count.  The few times someone met him on the level he was only average, jerking his controls around all over the place to avoid being hit.  And no, it's not suddenly "fair" if the enemy tries to fight back. as the choices are to nose up on a rapidly zooming enemy with little maneuver room, or dive and hope he decides you're not important enough a target.

The closest parallel I can think of is with the Call of Duty games there's a broken mechanic called "Quickscoping," where the player can bunny hop five feet in the air, swing a 15 pound sniper rifle in maybe 1/8 second to a scoped view and get a one shot head kill over and over.  The truth is they find the aimpoint on the screen then put a dot on their monitor, when the enemy is there they mash the buttons.

 

I would think flying primarily a 109 and doing the same thing over and over would get boring, or not much of a challenge.  I'd much rather play five lousy games then get "Hero of the Sky" in one good one.  Gaijin doesn't seem to have any interest in fixing this. The last game I had with a spawncamper half my team quit, and that may be the only real option. Just boycott the game and refuse them the opportunity.

[cashmeowsidehbd 1,269]

ss. dd. same ****. different day. You are correct though. Some of those players up there are pretty average. Maybe go up and shoot down a few. (heehee)

[Kosher_Locust 120]

On 27/04/2020 at 16:53, cashmeowsidehbd said:

ss. dd. same ****. different day. You are correct though. Some of those players up there are pretty average. Maybe go up and shoot down a few. (heehee)

 

Lately what I've been doing is diving away then circling around flying higher, tempting them to leave the spawn, then diving again  A lot of them are really meek to get out of the safe space, but once they do it's frag time.