Battlefield 3

[Chewbaccawacca]

I think I see what you mean. Though I'm unsure whether that was the case for me, I feel like it's the same for either jet or copter for me. I'll have to check once I get home from work. Could be I'm just crazy.

[Jahoclave]

I think I see what you mean. Though I'm unsure whether that was the case for me, I feel like it's the same for either jet or copter for me. I'll have to check once I get home from work. Could be I'm just crazy.

I'm also on the pc.

[Chewbaccawacca]

I wonder if that might be the issue with it. Because, at least for me, both the helicopters and jets go nose down with stick forward.

[SurgicalSteel]

Stick forward pushes down the nose of everything for me: planes, helis, turrets, people. Also, I'll be on around 9 est tonight probably if anyone wants to play a couple rounds.

[Chewbaccawacca]

9EST? What is that like 6 Pacific? I'm not off until around 8PST tonight, and I'm planning on seeing the new Liam Neeson flick tonight as well. But if you're still on when I get home I'll sign in.

[SurgicalSteel]

Yep, that would be 6 PST. Yea, if I'm still online send me a message. If I don't respond I may have fallen asleep watching netflix (this happens a lot).

[Chewbaccawacca]

Will do!

[Dark567]

Battlefield 3 and Altruism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ga ... 3-altruism

Spoiler:

Every time I play Battlefield 3, it happens, and I am not sure why. It happens amid tense urban skirmishes, and during quiet spells broken by unseen sniper fire; it happens in home bases, and on the perimeter of enemy-held positions. It happens all over the map, all the time. Players are nice to each other.

I don't just mean the tactical interactions provided by the game – the ability to chuck first aid kits and ammo at teammates, and the option to revive them if they're shot. I mean stuff like waiting in a vehicle until another player catches up, allowing them to hop in, or providing covering fire when someone else (often me) is stuck out in the middle of a street with an empty clip and a lousy sense of direction.

There is an argument of course, that this isn't altruism, it's simply part of the game – Battlefield 3 is predominantly a team endeavour, in which you earn more points at the close of a match if you're on the winning side. Helping other players ensures that you're not churning through re-spawn tickets, and in this sense can be as valuable as shooting an enemy. If you think that's the definitive answer, you may want to stop reading right now.

The thing is, this highly developed sense of macro-strategic thinking is not what we're led to expect from FPS players, certainly not on public servers. When you're playing with friends, you import your existing interchanges of loyalty and reciprocity into the experience; but playing with strangers, most of whom aren't wearing headsets and can't or won't communicate, separates us from those human bonds. And yet it happens. People are nice.

What's more, people are not only nice, they are often selfless. Choosing to revive a downed comrade can put you in harm's way – this may not only make the act counter-productive in a strategic sense, it will also have ramifications for your own kill-death ratio. This is important stuff. The famous Prisoner's Dilemma exercise has taught us that under duress, humans may have to think tactically, and to assume the worst from others. Yet, as social animals, we have relied on the evolution of altruistic traits to keep communities together. The whole field of game theory has developed to understand these contrasting facets and to plot the behaviours of rational participants – and here they are, playing out continuously, on every server of the Battlefield 3 universe.

And, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the fleeting group relationships formed on public Battlefield servers have genuine research value to mathematicians, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists who want to understand human motivations. Battlefield teams are essentially primitive tribal units, usually lacking in verbal communication and formed around the need to defend boundaries against rival groups. Interplay is instinctive and focused – it's like role-playing the dawn of man, but with M16s rather than clubs and spears.

Of course, the problem is, key crowd behaviours are often reversed in online games. There's a well-known phenomenon known as the bystander effect, in which the likelihood of people rushing in to help someone who's being attacked or has had an accident in the street is inversely proportionate to the number of witnesses. Large crowds instil us with a sense of audience inhibition – we don't want to look silly if we rush in to help someone who actually isn't in distress at all, or we don't want to take responsibility for doing the wrong thing. But in Battlefield 3, where situations are both anonymous AND lack ambiguity, people are chucking out med kits and rushing in to revive injured colleagues with none of the inhibition associated with real-life crowd behaviours.

I'm still surprised, though, that gameplay generosity remains common in Dice's series 15 years after it first arrived. In the original Battlefield 1942, I put it partly down to the fact that, even without comms headsets, players were able to jab the relevant function key to send out a request for ammo, medical help or just a lift in a passing tank. In the Xbox 360 version, you can make a context-sensistive call for help, but these operations are tucked away on the select key, which is not particularly intuitive, and they are not always noticed amid the chaos.

When I discussed all this with fellow games writer Christian Donlan he came up with another theory, which was less heart warming, but probably just as valid. As gamers, we're conditioned to interact continuously with the virtual world; we're almost always hitting buttons. However, in Battlefield, there are often long periods where you're just guarding a base, or camping on a hilltop with a sniper rifle waiting for an enemy to wander by. In these moments, we begin to crave inputs, we need to do something – so hitting a button to lob a health kit or an ammo box at a passing comrade is at least a feedback loop, however insignificant. Maybe this is the same impulse that drives players, in the countdown before a Battlefield level starts, to make their avatars jump up and down or twirl on the spot. We just need to be inputting. It's altruism as compulsive behaviour.

Perhaps there is a simple truth that online games get the players they deserve. If you're pitching your title as a fast-paced twitch shooter in which speed and individual excellence are the key requirements, you will get players who work in isolation. Modern Warfare 3 has attempted to build altruism into the Call of Duty experience with its support package, but by awarding experience points for altruistic acts, it's merely generating a new form of currency exhange. Psychologist Alfie Kohn has famously posited that generously rewarding people for being good doesn't make good people, it makes people who want more rewards.

I do wonder as well, whether EA has fabricated this sense of brotherhood by disabling team killing as default. In early iterations of Battlefield it was possible to shoot teammates or blow up their vehicles. There was always a small population of players who did this, either as an act of anarchy, or to force another craft to spawn so they could get in it themselves. In the latest versions of the game, team killing only operates in the 'Hardcore' mode. Battlefield players, then, perhaps rely on strict boundaries and benign systems in order to be nice to each other. We are human after all.

tl;dr: Battlefield 3 players are pretty nice.... Unlike say that other modern shooter.

[Xeio]

It does help to have mechanics that actually promote team play.

Though there are some supports I'd just love to stab in the face as I'm standing there with my javeling hitting Q trying to get them to drop bloody supplies so I can shoot the dozen laser pointed vehicles all about to blow us to smithereens.

[Jahoclave]

Yeah, I think the author is putting far too much stock in people doing things that are good tactical play. Well, the bare basics of good tactical play. You know who I notice doing these things far more often, higher ranked people. Who I see not doing these things as often, lower ranked players.

I think this might be the start of a wonderful correlation.

My biggest pet peeve is when I'm advancing up a hall and people don't advance with me. Look, I've cleared out the hall, now I need help clearing out the next bit in the hall. It was all nice and well for you to provide covering fire as I advanced, but now I need a different set of covering fire, and you're too far back to rez me or effectively clean up after I go down.

They just don't have any concept of pushing or flanking. I got eight or nine kills the other day trying to push out of a spawn camp, not because I was all that greatly positioned, but because I slightly flanked and the enemy never thought to even look. Had people gone with me we'd have dislodged them from camping.

That and defending. My kingdom for players that decide defending is a good idea if you're ahead or have the majority of points.

Which brings me to one thing I really hate, you can't check out anything on a server without joining it. So you can't even see if it's horribly unbalanced team wise. Or if you're going to have to go up against a clan squad.

[Will]

I have to attack one part of his argument, which I think points to a larger misunderstanding of the game that I don't feel like going into right now:

Choosing to revive a downed comrade can put you in harm's way – this may not only make the act counter-productive in a strategic sense, it will also have ramifications for your own kill-death ratio.

If I revive a fallen comrade, I get 100 points. I'm not doing it out of altruism, or even out of strategic productivity, I'm doing it because every time I revive someone, I get 100 points and a nice shot of dopamine from my brain's reward center. Maybe strategy or altruism have something to do with the thought process, but it's intrinsically tied up with the immediate reward I receive. In general, I don't find the argument that these actions are necessarily driven by altruism to be terribly compelling.

[EdgarJPublius]

A lot of FPS players, battlefield included, seem to think that kdr is the ultimate indicator of skill, mastery of the game, and all masculine virtues. Independent of any in-game points, rankings or other 'skill' indicators.

Battlefield does a better job of defusing the KDR obsession, but there are still plenty of kill farmers who exclusively snipe or mortar or do whatever they think will get them the most kills with the least chance of dying.

[hendusoone]

Yeah... in BF3, KDR means nothing. It's all about SPM, and there are much better ways of bringing that up than killing people. Many of them require helping your team out in big ways.

[Chewbaccawacca]

Teameocentric gameplay (totally a real thing) has always been my favorite in any shooter I've tried. Battlefield has always been the best IP (that I've found) for this type of multiplayer gaming. While the above mentioned gripes are completely valid and bug the heck out of me (ie no cover-fire/movement, unsupportive support players), I feel that overall the article takes an interesting trend in gaming, and paints it in the most positive light I've ever seen a FPS in.

If nothing else it's interesting to see that by rewarding team work, we begin to work as a team. Perhaps, as was mentioned, we are not now 'team players' but I do believe an argument could be made that we are indeed becoming a 'team'.


Oh and, 1337 5N1P3R SK1LLZ FTW NOOB!!!LOL

[Will]

If nothing else it's interesting to see that by rewarding team work, we begin to work as a team. Perhaps, as was mentioned, we are not now 'team players' but I do believe an argument could be made that we are indeed becoming a 'team'.

What I got from the article was that he was arguing that people in BF work as a team even though there's no reward for it, which he's only able to argue by systematically ignoring all the ways that BF rewards you for working as a team.

[Dark567]

Yeah... in BF3, KDR means nothing. It's all about SPM, and there are much better ways of bringing that up than killing people. Many of them require helping your team out in big ways.

SPM still isn't accurate though. Like a a good fighter pilot is good to gain air superiority for your team, or taking flags or comm stations to win the round(i.e. the things you need to do to win). You can get lots of points by spamming health and ammo, which although helps your teammates, doesn't do a ton to win rounds

What I got from the article was that he was arguing that people in BF work as a team even though there's no reward for it, which he's only able to argue by systematically ignoring all the ways that BF rewards you for working as a team.

I mean, he has a small point. The reality is that running into fire to revive isn't alone worth the reward for points, yet players do it anyway. Or

I mean stuff like waiting in a vehicle until another player catches up

You don't get points for that.

That said I think the scoring system in BF is generally brilliant compared to so many other shooters.

[Chewbaccawacca]

I agree with you Dark about the scoring system. Though for the instance of vehicles one could say that the driver simply wants as many guns with them as possible... Again making it an inherently selfish act.

[Dark567]

Though for the instance of vehicles one could say that the driver simply wants as many guns with them as possible... Again making it an inherently selfish act.

Are we going to claim BF3 psychological egoism then?

[The Scyphozoa]

That and defending. My kingdom for players that decide defending is a good idea if you're ahead or have the majority of points.

You'd give up Castle Clavey, and all of Narnia?

[Chewbaccawacca]

Though for the instance of vehicles one could say that the driver simply wants as many guns with them as possible... Again making it an inherently selfish act.

Are we going to claim BF3 psychological egoism then?

Heh, if you break it down, isn't all of videogaming a supreme form of egoism?

[EdgarJPublius]

Yeah... in BF3, KDR means nothing. It's all about SPM, and there are much better ways of bringing that up than killing people. Many of them require helping your team out in big ways.

SPM still isn't accurate though. Like a a good fighter pilot is good to gain air superiority for your team, or taking flags or comm stations to win the round(i.e. the things you need to do to win). You can get lots of points by spamming health and ammo, which although helps your teammates, doesn't do a ton to win rounds

A better than average fighter-pilot with flares or extinguisher can get a ridiculous KDR.

Also, capping flags/MCOM stations can be worth a TON of points, you can easily finish a Rush round as MVP just by taking MCOM station (each stage is worth at least 1200 points)

[Dark567]

A better than average fighter-pilot with flares or extinguisher can get a ridiculous KDR.

I'm in a clan, and I am the best fighter pilot in SPM. You don't get a lot of kills, just vehicle disables and destructions(pilots usually bail). You also can't get scores for anything else, other then spotting. So no spamming medkits or ammo. Sure a good fighter pilot can get a good KDR, but rarely dying, but not really that good a score. Chopper pilots on the other hand....

[Chewbaccawacca]

Heh, I love flying both choppers and fighters. Though I must say the majorty of fighter pilots I face usually go down either really quick, or it takes forever and I'm not always the person to shoot them down. Consequently the majority of points I get are from strafing runs on the ground. Destroying tanks and the like. It's hard for me to hit lone soldiers with the cannons...

[Dark567]

Heh, I love flying both choppers an fighters. Though I must say the majorty of fighter pilots I face usually go down either really quick, or it takes forever and I'm not always the person to shoot them down. Consequently the majority of points I get are from strafing runs on the ground. Destroying tanks and the like. It's hard for me to hit lone soldiers with the cannons...

Rockets.

[Chewbaccawacca]

As in "I cannot wait for the day I unlock rockets."

[Dark567]

As in "I cannot wait for the day I unlock rockets."

Oh. Well, to be honest, they're not that great, just better because they have some splash damage. The guided missiles are just outright disappointing. In the beta, they were devastating, lock on to a tank and it was blown to pieces. But it got nerfed and it takes 3 or 4 to kill a tank; its better to just go in with rockets and cannons.

EDIT: According to my sources if you play on "Hardcore" they are still pretty powerful.

[Chewbaccawacca]

That is a shame. I was really looking forward to unlocking the Guided Missle. Just the amount of team work involved should have made it a powerful contribution. Especially since you can't fire one without help from your team. Shame.

[Xeio]

I'm pretty sure I'm never gonna even unlock flares.

[Dark567]

I'm pretty sure I'm never gonna even unlock flares.

Honestly, flares are overrated. I mean sure, they are good for getting a missle off, but I would prefer other unlocks. Flying low and outside stinger range is better. Or putting terrain/a building between you and the missle.

[Chewbaccawacca]

I swear I played 20 rounds flying jets before I unlocked flares. It wasn't that I was getting shot down, I'm decent with fighter sims, it was instead I couldn't shoot anybody else down. And don't even get me started on strafing runs (I don't actually have a lot to say about it, except it sucked).

[Jahoclave]

That and defending. My kingdom for players that decide defending is a good idea if you're ahead or have the majority of points.

You'd give up Castle Clavey, and all of Narnia?

No, but I won't have to. I already put defense in the things that'll never happen category.

[EdgarJPublius]

A better than average fighter-pilot with flares or extinguisher can get a ridiculous KDR.

I'm in a clan, and I am the best fighter pilot in SPM. You don't get a lot of kills, just vehicle disables and destructions(pilots usually bail). You also can't get scores for anything else, other then spotting. So no spamming medkits or ammo. Sure a good fighter pilot can get a good KDR, but rarely dying, but not really that good a score. Chopper pilots on the other hand....

That's kinda my point, many of the people who farm KDR go fighter, not because they can get a lot of kills/points, but because if you're any good at it you are pseudo-immortal

[Jahoclave]

Which I think has a lot to do with the sparse anti-air options on most maps. Soldiers pretty much have nothing, versus any competent pilot. So you've got some fifty cals on various vehicles and an anti-air vehicle if the maps has one.

So unless you are lucky enough to have an equally matched pilot, you've pretty much lost the air.

I really like the idea of controllable anti-air emplacements in the middle of the map, similar to those stationary anti-tank guns. Would at least give a bit more opportunity to a strong ground team to defend themselves against the air.

[Dark567]

Which I think has a lot to do with the sparse anti-air options on most maps. Soldiers pretty much have nothing, versus any competent pilot.

Two soldiers coordinating stingers can do a pretty good job. Once both have locked on, one fires and draws the flare, then the next soldier fires his stinger which should hit before the pilots flare resets. Rinse and repeat.

[hendusoone]

Sure, if the jet stays in range long enough. They usually get out of range pretty quickly, though.

[Jahoclave]

And that's some pretty hefty coordination, particularly on the pc where they don't have built in voice chat for some reason--though that's a sort of mix blessing. I don't have to listen to people screaming out "faggot."

[Chewbaccawacca]

Oh that's my FAVORITE part of xbox live. [/sarcasm]

But really, it's actually kinda suprising in that on Battlefield I have had to deal with that kind of ass-douchery all that much. Most people don't even seem to use their mics at all in comparison to other FPS's out there. Rather refreshing.

[Dark567]

Oh that's my FAVORITE part of xbox live. [/sarcasm]

I wonder if there is a different culture or something playing FPS's on PC. I never seem to have nearly the douchiness on PC shooters as I do on consoles.

[Jahoclave]

Oh that's my FAVORITE part of xbox live. [/sarcasm]

I wonder if there is a different culture or something playing FPS's on PC. I never seem to have nearly the douchiness on PC shooters as I do on consoles.

I would say there is.

I put together my pc for around 800 dollars--an x-box costs around what 100-300 dollars. You're much more likely to get an xbox at a younger age and to have an xbox for people who are non-standard gamers. Think your college frat boys. So teenagers and frat boys are far and above more likely to be yelling sexual epithets and racial slurs than a more selected group of individuals who are more along the lines of hobbyists.

Not to say these are solid demarcations, but if you look at the kind of people who say that kind of shit and the medium they're likely to play on--you'd almost expect some of the difference, which, given the few times I end up looking at chat shitstorms and some usernames, is slight at best.

[Chewbaccawacca]

It's not as bad as we make it out to be, but it's definitely there. This is pure conjecture, but I think it might have to do with the proportions of children/teenagers who have a gaming console to the same having access to a gaming pc. Most familys (in America at least) have at least a basic computer at home if for no other reason than to browse the trifecta of primary internet sites; YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook (or the mega-site YouTwitFace.com in the near future). These rigs, while perhaps being capable of supporting simple games on low levels, are not was is traditionally thought to be "Gaming Rigs". Thus PC gaming would seem to have a dearth (according to this theory) of the younger (filthy, disgusting!) more loquacious (awful, loudmouth!) demographic to clog the tubes (heh). Whereas that same group of shall we say, enthusiastic, youngsters will likely have access to an xbox, or perhaps a ps3. Who else do they have to shovel their hormonal confusion on than us old-fart, medium-skill gamers?

But all that to say, it's not all the time. But when it's bad, it's HORRENDOUS.



*EDIT* Oh hey, didn't see you there Jaho, but yeah same idea.