Gameplay improvements

[Altus_Demens]

I am marvelling at your ability of turning my arguments upside down and clinging to my words. All is fair in defending your point of view, right? It seems that my English skills are not sufficient to express myself - I apologize for that, apparently I have no flair for foreign languages and I used to have bad marks for them in the school.

This is a curious statement. I just gave you my historical perspective on how the balance was screwed up, but you simultaneously dismiss it and say you're struggling with how to fix it?

You perfectly know that the history of this server does interest me. However, I don't understand your binary logic. What I suggest is a new way of integrating the civilians in the gamemode. Yes, I want them to take part in the gamemode. I want to make it more fair and balanced. What's wrong with it? I don't like the state of affairs which existed before the "balance was screwed up", as you said. I am not happy with the current state of affairs. I suggest the third option. Ceterum, I humbly beg you to try to understand what I mean and I apologize for possible misunderstanding due to the way I express myself.

Then you can't use that an argument against letting the President fly. To do otherwise is dishonest.

How the hell do you know? I certainly don't pretend to know how many people have taken more of an interest in Rustlers, but I can tell you that I had two people following me around/chatting with me yesterday because of my guide, and I hadn't played in months. I had other questions about planes that I couldn't have dreamed about before the guide. From a cursory look, it's at least one of the most, if not the most-viewed topics on this form that isn't stickied or off-topic. I'm pretty disappointed that you so confidently say something like that with absolutely no evidence to back it up, in spite of obvious and easily-accessible evidence to the contrary.

Quaint. You are accusing me of arranging the facts, whilst I simply shared my observations. I'll repeat myself. First of all, I said that your "positive propaganda" does have an effect (you're not probably going to believe it: even I, an arrogant freak who you make me look like, bothered to learn something new from it and to fly a bit better), and it's good that your topic has so many vews. Nevertheless, I don't see too many players, especially newbies, who rely on flying as on their basic strategy of attacking, surviving and playing in general. Once again, it is my subjective opinion based on my subjective observations, not a fact backed up by throughoutly analyzed statistics, not the official position of the administration. If I am wrong, if I am a colour-blind who sees blue instead of red, correct me, explain me that I am wrong and I will gladly accept it. Your argument of two people who contacted you after your months of inactivity is as subjective, yet I don't start yelling about you using dishonest methods of discussing.

Now, let me recover the whole quote, not the part you preferred to cut:

That's not a Rustler problem; that's a culture problem. One person can usually take out a flying President anyway.

I kinda agree with you. Whilst I don't question your personal effort of popularizing rustlers (your signature), how much did it help? I mean, what is the percentage of players affected to your (positive) propaganda? Not too big. So you can blame lazy players or culture, or anything, the truth is that the amount of players capable of "usually taking out a flying YoMama" is very low.

What does your statement about "one person" mean? It can be applied for anything. One SMG fighter can usually take out another SMG fighter anyway. One security can usually take out a terrorist anyway. Or a terrorist can take out a security.
It is obvious that two more or less equally skilled players have more or less equal chances of taking each other out in a fair fight. However, you also said about the "culture problem". What did it mean? I might have been wrong, but I interpreted as "people are too lazy (unmotivated, unwilling) to learn to flight and to be able to take down an experienced rustler user". And yes... Subjectively, I think that it is true. Ceterum, I humbly beg you to try to understand what I mean and I apologize for possible misunderstanding due to the way I express myself.

Again, I'm pretty disappointed that you can be so arrogant. You're telling me that you know better than I do how difficult it is for me to survive when flying.

YoMama, where exactly did I say that, in my opinion, surviving with rustler (and generally by any means but having most of the VIPs in your team) is simple? That should the president reach the rustler and climb in the skies, they are the winner? Yes, you are right, I have enough experience of chasing the presidents, and I know very well that surviving is way tougher than attacking with more or less equal teams. I don't know why you attribute something to me, and then bravely denounce it. It is obvious that, if the attackers are motivated enough (usually by the newbie or the person they don't particularly like as a president), they will reach them anywhere, on the ground, at seas, in the skies. Nobody would withstand a three times superior force.

I don't want to avoid the subject, but since you dissected my statistics... Yes, I only have 8 out of 102 survivals, and each of them is precious for me. I rarely have a mood to be president, and I try not to do it unless I am certain that I'll have a superior force after me. That's how I prefer to play the games, and it doesn't mean that I am better or worse than anyone. I might lose 100 times, but a single victory where everything was unclear until the last minute, truly excites me; at least 6 of these 8 survivals fall under this definition. That's it.

My suggestion for you is to find some evidence that you didn't pull out of your ass, then reenter this debate.

Ah, how subtle, how refined. I suggest you to learn to discuss things correctly and to realize that other people may have the opinions different from yours, even completely mirrored, and it doesn't mean that you are a shiny D'Artagnan on a horseback and they are midgets.


Tl;dr: I'll repeat why I personally don't want to see the presidents capable of flying rustler. It's my opinion which means as much as the opinion of any other player, no more or less.
 - "There's very few people with enough motivation to try to catch up with a president in a Rustler." (c) Mia (I didn't want to repeat something after the others without adding anything from myself, but ok):
 - The president should not be a combat unit on themself (yes, VIP features and/or holiday should probably be nerfed too)
 - The strategies which leave the securities behind should be at least discouraged (as for the historical perspectives: YoMama, do you remember that the presidents were not able to drive NRGs back in the distant past? <- apparently it's not true, look here)

I won't reply here regarding this issue anymore, I don't think I can make myself more clear. The players will decide as they like. However, the biggest shame is that the majority of the players on the server don't even know about the existance of this discussion, and we won't hear their opinions.


P.S. Honestly, I see no reasons to make this personal. After one recent topic I don't know how to bow and scrape even more in order not to offend anyone, as I am never willing to do it when discussing things. Here is my hand; please, don't hold any grudges as that's not something I have meant.

[YoMama]

I got a little pissed off when I wrote my last reply; I'm sorry. I tend to get annoyed when discussing this kind of thing because the debate gets so repetitive.

What I suggest is a new way of integrating the civilians in the gamemode. Yes, I want them to take part in the gamemode. I want to make it more fair and balanced. What's wrong with it? I don't like the state of affairs which existed before the "balance was screwed up", as you said. I am not happy with the current state of affairs. I suggest the third option. Ceterum, I humbly beg you to try to understand what I mean and I apologize for possible misunderstanding due to the way I express myself.

The "third option" is hardly a change-- the problem is not that civilians team up, it's that they team up with the most powerful weapons in the game. It doesn't matter whether or not they spawn together or team up with other classes; they're way more powerful than they should be.

YoMama, where exactly did I say that, in my opinion, surviving with rustler (and generally by any means but having most of the VIPs in your team) is simple?

You didn't, but you did imply that few people are able to shoot me down when I'm flying. I have written, repeatedly and over many years, that any pilot can be shot down much more easily by adding a second person. Many people have shot me down individually.

I don't want to avoid the subject, but since you dissected my statistics... Yes, I only have 8 out of 102 survivals, and each of them is precious for me. I rarely have a mood to be president, and I try not to do it unless I am certain that I'll have a superior force after me. That's how I prefer to play the games, and it doesn't mean that I am better or worse than anyone. I might lose 100 times, but a single victory where everything was unclear until the last minute, truly excites me; at least 6 of these 8 survivals fall under this definition. That's it.

My intent was not to belittle your statistics. As you know, I also don't like making things easy for myself as President. I respect your choices as to how you play the game; I wish other people thought similarly. I brought up your statistics because I feel that it's not fair for people with relatively little experience playing as President to make claims about other people being capable of taking the President out in x situation. This isn't limited to you. Nearly every time this debate resurfaces, comments from both sides surface, but I rarely see a novel point against the President flying Rustlers from someone with a lot of flying experience and experience as the President. I'm sick of them being considered on equal footing, because to me they simply aren't.

My suggestion for you is to find some evidence that you didn't pull out of your ass, then reenter this debate.

Ah, how subtle, how refined. I suggest you to learn to discuss things correctly and to realize that other people may have the opinions different from yours, even completely mirrored, and it doesn't mean that you are a shiny D'Artagnan on a horseback and they are midgets.

I could have said it in a nicer way, but my point remains the same. Your best points have to do with the culture here, which isn't really a Rustler problem. The worst points here are just wrong to me, contradicted by my experience flying. There isn't a nicer way of putting that. It certainly isn't limited to you.

Tl;dr: I'll repeat why I personally don't want to see the presidents capable of flying rustler. It's my opinion which means as much as the opinion of any other player, no more or less.

You're entitled to your opinion, but with the qualification that you don't have nearly as much experience in this area as some of those on the other side of this debate. I'm okay with you saying that you don't like it. I'm not okay with you or anyone else saying things that contradict my knowledge.

- "There's very few people with enough motivation to try to catch up with a president in a Rustler." (c) Mia (I didn't want to repeat something after the others without adding anything from myself, but ok):

Again, this is a culture problem, not an argument against letting him fly.

- The strategies which leave the securities behind should be at least discouraged (as for the historical perspectives: YoMama, do you remember that the presidents were not able to drive NRGs back in the distant past?)

Another culture problem. Regarding the NRGs: no, because I don't think that's true. I'd be interested to know where you head that from-- perhaps it predates me. My understanding is that way back when, things used to be pretty permissive. I never remember the President not being able to use NRGs; in fact I remember it as the dominant strategy because there were too many people to fight off-- people who were playing the game instead of fucking around as civilians.

- The president should not be a combat unit on themself (yes, VIP features and/or holiday should probably be nerfed too)

I don't think this makes the President a combat unit if people are properly playing the game (like if half of them aren't civilians?). Anything more than one person chasing means the President is on the run, not fighting, just like on the ground. He's certainly not as much of a combat unit as he is in an FBI Rancher with 10 securities on it, or in Area 69 with a bunch of security people and grenades.

This is, in my opinion, the best argument against the President flying Rustlers. However, it neglects the huge tradeoff here of the severe penalty, easily death, that the President pays by flying. It implies that a flying President can defend himself against attack, which is only true if no one is chasing him (just the same as being on the ground). It reduces to the culture problem again. It's not a good argument.

However, the biggest shame is that the majority of the players on the server don't even know about the existance of this discussion, and we won't hear their opinions.

Definitely agree there.

[Altus_Demens]

I didn't want to reply in order to let the others express their opinions (I am sure that everyone is well aware about our points of view and arguments ), but I have to add a little remark.

I had a talk with our old-timer COBRA[PPLV] and he said that in fact the presidents were always allowed to drive NRGs. So my bad here, disregard that statement of mine, please.