We all know how toxic this community can/has been, a by-product of the genre maybe, difference of opinion.. comp/pub divides, call it what you will, but they (AA) established rules and if they aint followed, what does anyone expect? Most moderators (even betas) here have been here long enough to know and follow any procedures set by AA in regards to punishment for rule breaking/forum malpractice.
I'm sure the Army game image also depends on behavior of it's participants too. Believe it or not, it's not hard to not get banned on this forum, and before anyone says it, you don't have to be a kiss butt, or be inside some circle to avoid it, I've had my say in the past, been warned, be it positive or negative, I personally just never crossed a line I knew was there. I'd venture to bet that whoever has been banned in the past has done something wrong to deserve it. But being banned is not nice and probably never feels deserved right? which i think is what your referring to?
You speak (bold quoted me) like it's a good thing to lose a developer (at least how I read it) and you know what? losing is never a good thing. I can't speak for the man (Tots) but I'm sure he wanted what was best for the game, community and AA. Discrediting people for simply doing their job is for lack of a better term, slanderous.
doogle is right. A lot of people were banned for being critical of the game and its direction. My guess would be an abuse of this rule: "You may not post for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forums."
I've had posts removed that violated no rules but were critical of the game and its direction or highlighted hit reg issues that Tots was insistent on denying despite my posting dozens of videos proving otherwise.
An example I'd point out was shhfiftyfive. He's a vet and was as passionate about the game as anybody. He posted a ton of lengthy posts offering his views on the game. I didn't agree with all of his views, but he was very passionate and articulate about them. He ended up being banned without warning or any official notification.
I don't doubt Tots gave the job his all and don't know him personally, but the way the forums were run when he was here and the dev team's relationship with the comp player base were atrocious.
Let's be honest, some guys were a bit abrasive towards others. I've been critical of AAPG as well, but I can hardly remember a time where I stepped out of line in the way I treated others. It's one thing to debate, it's another to get personal or attack people. Be charitable to others and usually you'll have no issues no matter what your opinion may be.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
The "Us" vs "Them" elitist attitude has been in AA since day one.
The public voice never gets heard, instead its censored by agenda driven moderation or drowned out by Beta Testers who have the direct ear of Developers.
AA has made its bed, now you can lay in it.
When will you folks realize that it is NOT about the criticism, but the choice of words and tone.
Saying "I don't think feature x.y.z. is useful because it causes A.B.C. to happen, and here's why I think it could be better..."
...is a LOT different than saying, "Stupid. Accuse. Incompetent. Uncaring. Speculate. Don't Listen. Crap. Garbage. Lazy. Worthless. Useless. Blind. Stupid. Incompetent. Uncaring. Don't Listen. Crap. Garbage. Lazy. Worthless. Speculate. Useless. Blind. Stupid. Incompetent. Uncaring. Accuse. Don't Listen. Crap. Garbage. Lazy. Worthless. Useless. Blind. I hate this game."
REAL people work for the Army on this game. How many people IRL do you walk up to and start talking like above and get anyone to cooperate with you?
These forums need constructive criticism and feedback, not toxic abuse. It's a [TOS Violation] good thing I'm not a moderator here because I'd give you all ONE chance to state your case in a useful way to help make improvements...heck....I'd even coach you on how to say it to get the best chance of results if you want....and on the second whiny entitled rant would see you the heck out of here so more useful criticism can happen.
I am old enough to accept "No." Is anyone else?
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Just started to play Squad and don‘t need to come back to AAPG again, it‘s just a freakin great game. This is how I would expect AA5, a lot more tactics, maybe a combination of Squad art of gaming and AA2.
The "Us" vs "Them" elitist attitude has been in AA since day one.
The public voice never gets heard, instead its censored by agenda driven moderation or drowned out by Beta Testers who have the direct ear of Developers.
AA has made its bed, now you can lay in it.
Could not have said it better.. Some post were removed last week, to protect one of their own for making a big mistake. If Tots was still here I'll probably had a instant ban on the forum for it.
The "Us" vs "Them" elitist attitude has been in AA since day one.
The public voice never gets heard, instead its censored by agenda driven moderation or drowned out by Beta Testers who have the direct ear of Developers.
AA has made its bed, now you can lay in it.
Could not have said it better.. Some post were removed last week, to protect one of their own for making a big mistake. If Tots was still here I'll probably had a instant ban on the forum for it.
Speculate much?
Personal attacks will always be dealt with as such. (I'm not the one that hid it, but you were both wrong.)
Discuss the game, flaws and benefits, not each other.
The "Us" vs "Them" elitist attitude has been in AA since day one.
The public voice never gets heard, instead its censored by agenda driven moderation or drowned out by Beta Testers who have the direct ear of Developers.
AA has made its bed, now you can lay in it.
Could not have said it better.. Some post were removed last week, to protect one of their own for making a big mistake. If Tots was still here I'll probably had a instant ban on the forum for it.
Speculate much?
Personal attacks will always be dealt with as such. (I'm not the one that hid it, but you were both wrong.)
Discuss the game, flaws and benefits, not each other.
I don't need to speculate, I've made my screenshots of it. And if you think that I made it personal then its your opinion, all I did was calling that person out on what he said because it wasn't smart to post that.
And you right on something though, its about discussing the game, flaws and benefits. However, that also includes the way things are being tested. And if that's unacceptable on this forum then I fear that all discussion made on this forum are being pushed into the "We don't care bucket".
Not to derail this AA5 thread...cause we need to keep that going...but.
IMO, ANY time a mod or Dev have to edit or delete a post, or issue an official warning, that person should be receiving something in their inbox. Personal attacks are one of the areas that should be heavily moderated...other than that, the board should be fairly liberal. Sometimes the folks with the special colors would be better off watching from a distance rather than inserting their opinions, especially when their tone is as equally condescending as the resistance they're trying to quell. It's as if sometimes we need some policing of the mods/betas posts and attitude in game as well. It's counterproductive from a community relations standpoint...even if they don't "work" for Army Game.
FWIW, I also received a permaban from the Almighty. I simply call it how I see it, even if that doesn't sit well with the people with green/blue/yellow names.
SCAR looks good. Can't wait to kill people and get banned from more servers.
I was in the beta program for maybe 6 months back in the early days of open beta. Very few betas were high level players. A few guys that were brought in were above average players, certainly no one elite, most of those guys left around the same time I did after the big comp group debacle and seeing that their input didn't really accomplish much. I'd consider myself in the above average, certainly nowhere near elite. Even my opinion is probably lower on the scale of people who should be listened. My knowledge mainly comes from playing a fairly wide variety of games over the years (my FPS experience goes back to Doom and online experience goes back to the original Half-Life), playing a bit of competitive America's Army back in the day, and just reading/listening to the opinions of better players than myself.
I remember when the dev team tried bringing in a comp group into the beta program. It led into issues where some of the beta team felt slighted by the comp players being brought into the private club and trying to throw their weight around. It just created in fighting and some of the comp players stepped over the line of civility causing the entire thing to be dismantled.
I do think that something of that nature should be implemented again with the next game, however, separate the teams 100%. Never let them even come in contact with each other. High level players should see the alpha builds. Let them help with the direction of the game before the product even gets to beta. Let the beta players then test it to kill bugs and such before it goes live.
My personal opinion is that the beta team, being as they are, should have the job solely of testing the product prior to release. Get another team to give ideas. Players who have high level experience in FPS games in a competitive setting. They understand these games to a level that the average person, even the developers don't always understand.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
I was in the beta program for maybe 6 months back in the early days of open beta. Very few betas were high level players. A few guys that were brought in were above average players, certainly no one elite, most of those guys left around the same time I did after the big comp group debacle and seeing that their input didn't really accomplish much. I'd consider myself in the above average, certainly nowhere near elite. Even my opinion is probably lower on the scale of people who should be listened. My knowledge mainly comes from playing a fairly wide variety of games over the years (my FPS experience goes back to Doom and online experience goes back to the original Half-Life), playing a bit of competitive America's Army back in the day, and just reading/listening to the opinions of better players than myself.
I remember when the dev team tried bringing in a comp group into the beta program. It led into issues where some of the beta team felt slighted by the comp players being brought into the private club and trying to throw their weight around. It just created in fighting and some of the comp players stepped over the line of civility causing the entire thing to be dismantled.
I do think that something of that nature should be implemented again with the next game, however, separate the teams 100%. Never let them even come in contact with each other. High level players should see the alpha builds. Let them help with the direction of the game before the product even gets to beta. Let the beta players then test it to kill bugs and such before it goes live.
My personal opinion is that the beta team, being as they are, should have the job solely of testing the product prior to release. Get another team to give ideas. Players who have high level experience in FPS games in a competitive setting. They understand these games to a level that the average person, even the developers don't always understand.
That's a great post. I'm not on the inside, but I think a mix of both low and high skill level players need to have input/opinions. 99.99% of the Betas I've ever met in the wild are super friendly, but then you kill them a few times jumping around and the script is flipped. And it's fair to say the same about "comp" players. Elitists in their own right who do not value the opinion of their counterparts.
Betas test. Devs code.
I'd propose a rotating panel of individuals for ideas/think-tank. Set a minimum amount of play time, find your high K/D and low K/D players that can articulate their thoughts and opinions. Make them do real research, write up pro's con's.... Make them provide a finished (templated) product (like a report) that could then be viewed by Hunstville and tossed, implemented, or placed on hold until a decision is made.
Personally I think we should remove Beta Testers in AAV completely, and run a Live build and a Test build with 2/3 test servers. Let the public test the game before pushing it to the live build have always been the better option, giving the public the ability to do so is very effective. Look at ArmA 3 they do it and the community gives them so much feedback that their live builds go live with almost no issues.
Personally I think we should remove Beta Testers in AAV completely, and run a Live build and a Test build with 2/3 test servers. Let the public test the game before pushing it to the live build have always been the better option, giving the public the ability to do so is very effective. Look at ArmA 3 they do it and the community gives them so much feedback that their live builds go live with almost no issues.
I agree but work side by side with the Beta Testers to report the bugs we find or we will have 10000 post on bugs
Personally I think we should remove Beta Testers in AAV completely, and run a Live build and a Test build with 2/3 test servers. Let the public test the game before pushing it to the live build have always been the better option, giving the public the ability to do so is very effective. Look at ArmA 3 they do it and the community gives them so much feedback that their live builds go live with almost no issues.
I agree but work side by side with the Beta Testers to report the bugs we find or we will have 10000 post on bugs
You can't agree and then tell me to work with Beta Testers, the point was to remove them and let the public shape the game to what they want it to be and find issues that needs to be fixed
It's better to have 10000 posts on bugs then 0 posts because they are to afraid to respond and say they have done a terrible job in testing the builds before going live. Lets remove that fear.
Beta Testers do a great job they are needed you only see what they missed you don't see the 1000 or so they catch and get fixed trust me I was a beta testers and they work hard.
Sometimes it takes a full server and many hours for some bugs to be found so yes they miss some but they get the majority before a update goes out.
Beta Testers do a great job they are needed you only see what they missed you don't see the 1000 or so they catch and get fixed trust me I was a beta testers and they work hard.
Sometimes it takes a full server and many hours for some bugs to be found so yes they miss some but they get the majority before a update goes out.
I've to disagree on that, sure they find stuff and I never would say they don't but it's just not good enough. It happens again and again that they told us that something was fixed while it wasn't. For example 12 APR patch they posted "Fix for an issue where the front iron sights can get out of place", so after updating my game I join a server and start spamming right mouse button. Guess what, It was still there and not fixed, a patch later it was fixed and they didn't tell us.
Now you can say, they might have missed it. No!, if a test build is presented to the Beta Testers with a known issue and the Devs receive a feedback that it's oke, its fixed but in reality it wasn't. Then I start saying, there is a giant problem and stuff is not being tested.
Keep in mind, all you had to do to see if it was fixed was spamming right mouse button.
That's why I recommanded to remove the Beta Testing team, and make a public test build which they can switch to in steam like ArmA 3 does and have it tested large scale where experienced players do what they do best and try to break the game to find issues.
PUBG has a pretty good system. I assume they have internal betas, then they put out a public test build that people can play if they want to, otherwise just play the stable build. People can then provide feedback on the test build, report bugs, etc. The devs can then go back and do more work based on the feedback they receive before putting the patch out on the main/stable build.
It would work like this:
1) Internal alpha -> 2) Closed Beta -> 3) Public Beta -> 4) Closed Beta -> Adjust & repeat other steps as necessary -> Public Release
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
PUBG has a pretty good system. I assume they have internal betas, then they put out a public test build that people can play if they want to, otherwise just play the stable build. People can then provide feedback on the test build, report bugs, etc. The devs can then go back and do more work based on the feedback they receive before putting the patch out on the main/stable build.
It would work like this:
1) Internal alpha -> 2) Closed Beta -> 3) Public Beta -> 4) Closed Beta -> Adjust & repeat other steps as necessary -> Public Release
Meh, unfortunately our userbase right now is so small, this would be negative for the game.
PUBG has a pretty good system. I assume they have internal betas, then they put out a public test build that people can play if they want to, otherwise just play the stable build. People can then provide feedback on the test build, report bugs, etc. The devs can then go back and do more work based on the feedback they receive before putting the patch out on the main/stable build.
It would work like this:
1) Internal alpha -> 2) Closed Beta -> 3) Public Beta -> 4) Closed Beta -> Adjust & repeat other steps as necessary -> Public Release
Meh, unfortunately our userbase right now is so small, this would be negative for the game.
Well that could be fixed by sponsoring their new game to major youtuber that do tactical shooters a lot and sponsoring a video or two for the new game. It will pull in a good amount of players to at least try the game.
I don't know, I'm not a big fan of public betas. I thought I was back when AAPG came out but most of people don't get it and only give the game one chance... and I'm not talking about bugs but the amount of features in it. Not even having a functional fullscreen serverbrowser is a mood killer. It kind of depends on the beta but I'd say it should atleast be compfriendly out of the box.
My personal opinion is that the beta team, being as they are, should have the job solely of testing the product prior to release. Get another team to give ideas. Players who have high level experience in FPS games in a competitive setting. They understand these games to a level that the average person, even the developers don't always understand.
Ultimately they choose (or are told to) to do whatever they want to choose and when to do it. AAPG devs had access to thousands of pages of beta feedback, comp feedback, average joe feedback and here we are but i know who's fault this is someone jumped out of the boat too early... someone promised things and then puff if I ever see that guy again...
Comments
doogle is right. A lot of people were banned for being critical of the game and its direction. My guess would be an abuse of this rule: "You may not post for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forums."
I've had posts removed that violated no rules but were critical of the game and its direction or highlighted hit reg issues that Tots was insistent on denying despite my posting dozens of videos proving otherwise.
An example I'd point out was shhfiftyfive. He's a vet and was as passionate about the game as anybody. He posted a ton of lengthy posts offering his views on the game. I didn't agree with all of his views, but he was very passionate and articulate about them. He ended up being banned without warning or any official notification.
I don't doubt Tots gave the job his all and don't know him personally, but the way the forums were run when he was here and the dev team's relationship with the comp player base were atrocious.
The public voice never gets heard, instead its censored by agenda driven moderation or drowned out by Beta Testers who have the direct ear of Developers.
AA has made its bed, now you can lay in it.
Saying "I don't think feature x.y.z. is useful because it causes A.B.C. to happen, and here's why I think it could be better..."
...is a LOT different than saying, "Stupid. Accuse. Incompetent. Uncaring. Speculate. Don't Listen. Crap. Garbage. Lazy. Worthless. Useless. Blind. Stupid. Incompetent. Uncaring. Don't Listen. Crap. Garbage. Lazy. Worthless. Speculate. Useless. Blind. Stupid. Incompetent. Uncaring. Accuse. Don't Listen. Crap. Garbage. Lazy. Worthless. Useless. Blind. I hate this game."
REAL people work for the Army on this game. How many people IRL do you walk up to and start talking like above and get anyone to cooperate with you?
These forums need constructive criticism and feedback, not toxic abuse. It's a [TOS Violation] good thing I'm not a moderator here because I'd give you all ONE chance to state your case in a useful way to help make improvements...heck....I'd even coach you on how to say it to get the best chance of results if you want....and on the second whiny entitled rant would see you the heck out of here so more useful criticism can happen.
I am old enough to accept "No." Is anyone else?
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Could not have said it better.. Some post were removed last week, to protect one of their own for making a big mistake. If Tots was still here I'll probably had a instant ban on the forum for it.
Speculate much?
Personal attacks will always be dealt with as such. (I'm not the one that hid it, but you were both wrong.)
Discuss the game, flaws and benefits, not each other.
I don't need to speculate, I've made my screenshots of it. And if you think that I made it personal then its your opinion, all I did was calling that person out on what he said because it wasn't smart to post that.
And you right on something though, its about discussing the game, flaws and benefits. However, that also includes the way things are being tested. And if that's unacceptable on this forum then I fear that all discussion made on this forum are being pushed into the "We don't care bucket".
IMO, ANY time a mod or Dev have to edit or delete a post, or issue an official warning, that person should be receiving something in their inbox. Personal attacks are one of the areas that should be heavily moderated...other than that, the board should be fairly liberal. Sometimes the folks with the special colors would be better off watching from a distance rather than inserting their opinions, especially when their tone is as equally condescending as the resistance they're trying to quell. It's as if sometimes we need some policing of the mods/betas posts and attitude in game as well. It's counterproductive from a community relations standpoint...even if they don't "work" for Army Game.
FWIW, I also received a permaban from the Almighty. I simply call it how I see it, even if that doesn't sit well with the people with green/blue/yellow names.
SCAR looks good. Can't wait to kill people and get banned from more servers.
I think one of the most important features, aside from gameplay, for AA5 is: https://forum.americasarmy.com/discussion/7486/plans-for-robust-server-setup
People should NOT HAVE TO OPEN INI's TO EDIT THEIR GAME OR SERVER FILES. This isn't 1998.
I remember when the dev team tried bringing in a comp group into the beta program. It led into issues where some of the beta team felt slighted by the comp players being brought into the private club and trying to throw their weight around. It just created in fighting and some of the comp players stepped over the line of civility causing the entire thing to be dismantled.
I do think that something of that nature should be implemented again with the next game, however, separate the teams 100%. Never let them even come in contact with each other. High level players should see the alpha builds. Let them help with the direction of the game before the product even gets to beta. Let the beta players then test it to kill bugs and such before it goes live.
My personal opinion is that the beta team, being as they are, should have the job solely of testing the product prior to release. Get another team to give ideas. Players who have high level experience in FPS games in a competitive setting. They understand these games to a level that the average person, even the developers don't always understand.
That's a great post. I'm not on the inside, but I think a mix of both low and high skill level players need to have input/opinions. 99.99% of the Betas I've ever met in the wild are super friendly, but then you kill them a few times jumping around and the script is flipped. And it's fair to say the same about "comp" players. Elitists in their own right who do not value the opinion of their counterparts.
Betas test. Devs code.
I'd propose a rotating panel of individuals for ideas/think-tank. Set a minimum amount of play time, find your high K/D and low K/D players that can articulate their thoughts and opinions. Make them do real research, write up pro's con's.... Make them provide a finished (templated) product (like a report) that could then be viewed by Hunstville and tossed, implemented, or placed on hold until a decision is made.
I agree but work side by side with the Beta Testers to report the bugs we find or we will have 10000 post on bugs
You can't agree and then tell me to work with Beta Testers, the point was to remove them and let the public shape the game to what they want it to be and find issues that needs to be fixed
It's better to have 10000 posts on bugs then 0 posts because they are to afraid to respond and say they have done a terrible job in testing the builds before going live. Lets remove that fear.
Sometimes it takes a full server and many hours for some bugs to be found so yes they miss some but they get the majority before a update goes out.
I've to disagree on that, sure they find stuff and I never would say they don't but it's just not good enough. It happens again and again that they told us that something was fixed while it wasn't. For example 12 APR patch they posted "Fix for an issue where the front iron sights can get out of place", so after updating my game I join a server and start spamming right mouse button. Guess what, It was still there and not fixed, a patch later it was fixed and they didn't tell us.
Now you can say, they might have missed it. No!, if a test build is presented to the Beta Testers with a known issue and the Devs receive a feedback that it's oke, its fixed but in reality it wasn't. Then I start saying, there is a giant problem and stuff is not being tested.
Keep in mind, all you had to do to see if it was fixed was spamming right mouse button.
That's why I recommanded to remove the Beta Testing team, and make a public test build which they can switch to in steam like ArmA 3 does and have it tested large scale where experienced players do what they do best and try to break the game to find issues.
It would work like this:
1) Internal alpha -> 2) Closed Beta -> 3) Public Beta -> 4) Closed Beta -> Adjust & repeat other steps as necessary -> Public Release
Meh, unfortunately our userbase right now is so small, this would be negative for the game.
Well that could be fixed by sponsoring their new game to major youtuber that do tactical shooters a lot and sponsoring a video or two for the new game. It will pull in a good amount of players to at least try the game.
Ultimately they choose (or are told to) to do whatever they want to choose and when to do it. AAPG devs had access to thousands of pages of beta feedback, comp feedback, average joe feedback and here we are